What they really need to start doing, is including ground floor retail to University developments along busy stretches such as Nebraska Avenue. Vast swathes of the city lack any commercial space even along main roads. AU would be providing, whether residents believe it or not, a huge amenity to the community AND their students. GW is starting to get the idea, but it may be too late to add much vibrancy down there. Gtown has enough retail space in the surrounding neighborhood that it isn't an issue there. GW's Mt Vernon campus might be able to add a storefront or two to Foxhall Rd.

by SG on Jun 10, 2010 1:59 pm • link • report

It shouldn't cut down drunk driving since AU has a dry campus.

by Nathan on Jun 10, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report

All the buildings along the north side of Nebraska wouldn't be compatible with ground floor retail, although I completely agree that this area of town needs a ton more of it. It could work in the space that is now Nebraska parking lot, but the buildings would end up looking quite different from other buildings on campus.

As a recent AU grad, I'd say they just need commercial space on the campus in any form. On campus food options are hugely limited and off campus options generally aren't within easy walking distance. I think that especially with this large housing increase they'll need more commercial diversity.

by Cameron on Jun 10, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report

@Nathan

A dry campus equals drinking in dorms with doors closed. There's still a decent amount of drunk driving, especially with people drinking off campus and then driving back on. Overall tho, not a ton of people drive to AU tho, because parking runs around 500 a semester.

by Cameron on Jun 10, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

Cemeron,

Last time I was there parking was free after 5 or 5:30 and weekends. Which helped the thousands of grad students taking night classes and weekend classes. Although the parking lot was about 1/2 to 3/4 full any given night.

by RJ on Jun 10, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report

The ANC 3B (Glover Park, Cathedral Heights) will be considering a resolution introduced by Brian Cohen this evening supporting a Wisconsin Avenue streetcar route. This follows the success of getting ANC 3C (Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens) and ANC 2E (Georgetown, Burleith) to support resolutions in favor of a Wisconsin Avenue streetcar route.

Due to a prior commitment, I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting. If you have a minute and you're a DC resident, please write to the ANC Commissioners to let them know that you support this investment in improved mobility and sustainable transportation for the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

Cathy Fiorillo cathyfiorillo@verizon.net
Jackie Blumenthal jackieblumenthal@aol.com
Melissa J. Lane mjlanedc@comcast.net
Horace "Howie" Kreitzman horacekreitzman@aol.com
Brian Cohen brian.a.cohen@gmail.com

by Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar Coalition on Jun 10, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

Any new construction will cause ANC and local community uproars. The biggest issue, as always, will be parking. My sense is that AU kids don't have as much (or maybe as prominent) town-gown issues as other universities have. But parking and traffic is forever the third rail of any college expansion plan. Simply saying residents need to "give up outdated concerns" is pretty much a non-starter on the issue.

by Fritz on Jun 10, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report

Fritz-- please see the above post. Georgetown U.'s 2020 campus plan also calls for adding approximately 3,500 additional students and staff/faculty. A Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will provide a great way to accomodate many of these new students without more congestion, emissions, and parking issues.

by Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar Coalition on Jun 10, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

The sense I get is that 3,000 new students aren't being added - for the most part, it's just students that currently live off-campus are being brought back on. This contributes not just to better campus life for the University, but allows the University to host many more events which can benefit the entire community.

According to the .pdf file up there, it only looks like there will be an increase of about 150-300 students total. Over ten years, that's what, 15 students a year? I can't imagine that being a problem for anyone.

by K on Jun 10, 2010 4:44 pm • link • report

@K: According to a Jan. 2010 presentation the American U. student body will increase from the current size of approximately 10,400 students to 13,600: http://www.american.edu/finance/fas/upload/012610_3.pdf. This is the student population-- there will also be an increase of faculty and staff to accomodate these new students.

by Ben on Jun 10, 2010 4:56 pm • link • report

1) You can't have a party behind closed dorm doors. Sure, you can drink, but it's not going to substitute for massive frat-style blowouts.

2) Is parking really an issue? The Nebraska lot never seems full. My understanding of the plan is that there will be underground parking with a similar number of spaces. I'd rather look at buildings than asphalt.

BTW, that map is disorienting, since north is sort of upper-right. Makes refering to "east of Nebraska avenue" a bit confusing, because on a map with normal orientation it's south (and reality it's on the SE side of Nebraska).

by ah on Jun 10, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report

@Cameron

I wonder whether charging $500 per semester actually contributes to parking problems for the neighborhood (or at least a perception thereof). My husband was a student there and got an out-of-state street parking pass from DC for $380 for the year. Since we live 2 miles away without direct transit access, he'd drive over and park nearby (when I wasn't around to gripe that he should bike instead!)

I'm all for paying for parking, just noting the discrepancy.

by SpG on Jun 10, 2010 5:22 pm • link • report

The church right across the street has a decent sized parking lot for a property inside the District. This would be a great arrangement for shared-parking. The students/staff commuting from off-campus can use this Mon-Fri, and the church would be able to use it on Sat and Sun, when it holds services.

by Ben on Jun 10, 2010 5:26 pm • link • report

@Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar Coalition

Being a DC resident doesn't make you a constiuent of any and all ANC commissioners. You're a constituent of 1 ANC commissioner only ... and that's the one who represents the Single Member District (SMD) that you live in. I wouldn't, for example, have a right to try to influence all the ANC commissioners from Capitol Hill if I am not a Capitol Hill resident ... Especially on a matter only regarding Capitol Hill. And if you're not a resident of ANC 3B, you shouldn't be trying to influence them either, just like I won't.

by Lance on Jun 10, 2010 6:37 pm • link • report

Great prop! Totally agree that they should propose ground floor retail along Nebraska Ave. It is such a desolate stretch that could really use some street activity and give the AU students something to do in their own hood.

by Nick J on Jun 10, 2010 7:18 pm • link • report

@Lance

I believe there are members of the Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar Coalition who are residents of each of the SMD's in ANC 3B.

The fact of the matter is that advocacy groups routinely present and lobby to ANC Commissioners and Councilmembers all the time, including members of the Committee of 100. Would you have that organization limit its advocacy efforts before the ANCs and the City Council?

by Andrew on Jun 10, 2010 9:15 pm • link • report

I live in the area and drive through campus on Nebraska Avenue every day (because there is no Tenley-Tyson's bus route or something similar). We take walks through the area with the dog too. As a result I have numerous minutes every day to ponder what works and doesn't here.

Traffic flow -- both pedestrian and vehicular -- is a major issue, in my opinion. I am generally in favor of changes if they can be well thought out, and maybe this is a good occasion. For example:

-- Pedestrians compete with high-speed traffic to cross any of the four streets at Ward Circle. There are walk signals with countdown clocks, and those help -- but they are only installed on the Nebraska Avenue crossings, not the Massachusetts Avenue crossings. The south end of the circle at Massachusetts for example has a streetlight over one side of the pedestrian walk, but not the other. Numerous near-misses, and too many drivers who don't care to yield. What about a raised pedestrian walkway/hump or something with better and more alerting lighting? Or a protected cross with a stop light or at least some flashing yellows?

-- The potential park space inside Ward Circle is useless because there is zero pedestrian access to the central section. It's landscaped, and there's a statue in there of ... George Washington? Mr. Ward? -- but all we can do is look at it as we ride around like a merry-go-round. We can't afford wasted green space ... it shouldn't just be pretty to look at; rather, it could be a neighborhood and campus extension. Of course, it's not AU property, it's presumably NPS or DC DPR property, so insert predictions here about how easy it would be to get any redesign at all.

-- The green space would be even more useable if they would put some commercial on the west/south (bottom left on the diagram) corner of the circle. Imagine a few restaurants with outdoor seating or carryouts you could take across the street to the park. I don't know when Homeland Security (east/south corner) is expected to move to St. Elizabeth's in SE DC and whether we expect workers to stay in the area midday after DHS leaves, but having more food options for them as well as students and neighborhood residents would be great. It would, of course, require a zoning change to something like a PUD at a time when we have fights over the Newark Street/Wisconsin Avenue Giant for example.

-- Back to traffic in the circle itself: Unlike Chevy Chase Circle, which clearly indicates that vehicular traffic in the circle has the priority over incoming traffic from Connecticut Avenue, at Ward Circle, traffic southbound on Mass Avenue typically ignores or seems unaware of the need to yield to cars already in the circle already. There are standard triangular YIELD signs but nothing that accounts for the fact that two lanes of southbound traffic are merging simultaneously into the circle. Considering the major rush-hour press of volume trying to get through this area, some redesign should be in considered. Would it be worth the expense and disruption to build a (prettier) Dupont Circle-style underpass for Mass Avenue, opening up some of the circular green space to pedestrians and reducing the vehicular footprint, noise, etc.? Doubt it's feasible, just saying. Maybe the way the circle works should be redesigned; is Tenley Circle a better model? Some other pattern? Help me out, smart people.

-- Pedestrian traffic at the intersection with New Mexico Avenue is dangerous crossing Nebraska because of the high volume of vehicular traffic, the narrowness of lanes compared to the bus and truck traffic that goes through here, the shallowness of sidewalks, and the long wait time that many students are too impatient to wait on. As a result, numerous students stream across Nebraska Avenue mid-block with oncoming traffic. Any campus expansion/redevelopment should contemplate better ways to move people from one side of this major road to another.

-- Ingress and egress to the parking lots has complicated the situation, in my view. You can only enter and exit the parking lot from New Mexico (either northbound or southbound) and Nebraska (north/eastbound only). At the same time, folks entering and leaving the DHS facility have no traffic signal protection on Mass Avenue, and Westover Place (small, residential) has no light and is nearby. What if an entry point were moved over to Mass Avenue across from DHS and combined with a light in an intersection big enough to also allow Westover Place to benefit, perhaps on sensor only? The benefit would be, traffic coming from Tenleytown on Nebraska, or from Spring Valley on Mass, would go to this new entry point, rather than travel through campus on Nebraska, waiting to turn left (blocking traffic, frustrating pedestrians) on New Mexico, then waiting to turn left again as they must do now. This is a case where improved vehicular flow could remove vehicles from the middle of the new campus (Nebraska Ave).

-- And now mass transit. I love you Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar boosters, but that won't help us here much. Wisconsin Avenue is a bus ride away for many of the folks living on campus, who take AU shuttles or Metrobus, the latter either up to Tenley/Friendship Heights or the N series down Mass to downtown. Unless you start talking about extending the proposed line that will stop at Woodley Park up Calvert Street, Cleveland Avenue, Garfield Street, and Mass Avenue across Wisconsin all the way to Ward Circle or Spring Valley or Westmoreland Circle (which you can tell I have dreamed about seeing happen), streetcar won't get students to or from AU's campus, and it won't get residents in these suburban-feeling portions of upper Northwest onto transit for their discretionary rides. Maybe it's time for a Circulator service from Ward Circle to Tenleytown to Van Ness to Woodley Park to National Cathedral to Ward Circle? Dunno.

Apologies for the length... thanks to Neil for posting.

by Graham S on Jun 10, 2010 9:40 pm • link • report

This looks like a good plan, though I imagine there will be some neighborhood opposition for some reason or another. I imagine that would be made worse if you were to purpose more (probably badly needed) retail in the area.

@ Graham S:

Ward Circle is named after Artemas Ward. Pretty sure only AU Students have ever heard of him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemas_Ward

by Steven Yates on Jun 10, 2010 10:05 pm • link • report

Thanks Steven. Poor old Artie doesn't get much love, or many visitors, on his little Alcatraz-amidst-the-concrete-circles.

by Graham S on Jun 10, 2010 10:11 pm • link • report

What if an entry point were moved over to Mass Avenue across from DHS and combined with a light in an intersection big enough to also allow Westover Place to benefit, perhaps on sensor only?

You'd still need a left turn, it would just be at Ward Circle. But the circle is not well equipped to handle a lot of turners because of it's seriously confusing design. I suspect it would merely create a similar problem elsewhere.

Perhaps AU should give up some of their parking lot property to allow for a fifth lane that could be used to accommodate left turners in that stretch. Combine it with well-sequenced lights and a crosswalk and you might improve things.

by ah on Jun 10, 2010 11:56 pm • link • report

Let me modify that-- you're right in part, Graham, because an entrance there would at least accommodate traffic from Mass Ave. SB (and perhaps even NB), which now has to go onto Nebraska to enter the lot. A third entrance (or perhaps a second one, but on Mass instead of New Mexico) likely could improve matters.

by ah on Jun 10, 2010 11:58 pm • link • report

@ah - Right, if they could redesign the circle to actually handle traffic more effectively (and grant pedestrian access to the park), the left turn for wb Nebraska drivers wouldn't be as troubling - and even without redesign, the left turn prevents driving through campus. I see on the diagram what looks like a driveway connecting to Mass, so maybe that's the direction they are going in by proposing a garage on that part of the land.

by Graham S on Jun 11, 2010 5:45 am • link • report

@ SG: What they really need to start doing, is including ground floor retail to University developments along busy stretches

This is a really difficult point. GW is struggling with the same. AU will too. On the one hand, it is obvious that one thing that downtown DC misses is street level retail.

However, it drives universities nuts (it did at GW) that ANCs and "neighbors" demand the craziest retail options usually tailored at the whims of the neighborhood, with no regard of that students might need, or what universities might object to.

Taking the example of block 54 at GW and the opposing to-be-built new science and engineering building, GW would like the idea that when people come out of the Foggy Bottom metro, they know and enter onto campus. So, block 54 and the future SNE building should be a grand entry into GW. However, all the retail takes that away.

Ground level retail also clashes hard with some architectural needs of university buildings. Universities like great hallways with large classrooms on the ground level. Ground level is where a lot of the daily activities happen, students hang out, classes are held. Higher up is where faculty, departments, libraries, smaller class rooms and labs hide. On the other hand, scientists and engineers prefer to sit on the ground, if not under ground (see UMD, purple line, vibrations).

I've heard someone remark in despair: "How the hell can we build a science building that's a focal point for us and the city as a center of research when the neighborhood wants a Gap on the ground floor?"

On the other hand, 2000 Penn is a great moneymaker for GW.

So, I am not saying that retail and universities don't go together. But I am saying that universities and the neighborhoods should work very well together in figuring out how retail can be fit in. Universities should be sensitive to true neighborhood needs, but neighborhoods should realize that universities have needs as well. Needs that are general ignored by DC as a whole and by neighborhoods in specific. After all, the universities are the largest private employers int he district, providing many jobs for people of all backgrounds.

It is worth to point out that DC is actually a great research city. It is a shame that this is largely ignored. Not only do we have several internationally renowned universities, but we also have quite a handful of world leading federal labs in the area. Let me just throw out a bunch of unrandomly organized letters:

GU, GW, GMU, UMD, AU, CUA, Howard, Gadaullet, NIH, NIST, NSF and NLR. Towards, in and beyond Baltimore we also have NASA, APL, JHU, UMDMC, and ARL. And we also have the National Library of Medicine and the National Archives. Even the Smithsonian museums do research. [Apologies if I forgot an institution]

Combined with our new convention center, it is odd that DC keeps promoting itself as a center of tourism with the federal government, Smithsonian and sport as focal centers. DC is also a fantastic research city. [And even a military city, but the military does not tend to like tourists very much ;-)]

by Jasper on Jun 11, 2010 9:35 am • link • report

@Wisconsin Avenue Streetcar Coalition: So neighbors should be appeased at the increase in student population and any ensuing traffic because, maybe, in a few decades they might be a streetcar on Wisconsin Avenue?

Not really sure that's the best marketing approach for the AU development plan.

by Fritz on Jun 11, 2010 9:38 am • link • report

@Jasper

I've heard someone remark in despair: "How the hell can we build a science building that's a focal point for us and the city as a center of research when the neighborhood wants a Gap on the ground floor?"

Maybe I'm not getting this, but what's the problem with retail on the ground floor of a research building? Do the researchers feel like they won't be taken seriously unless they're doing work in some walled off campus? Is such research really so opposed to taking place in an urban setting?

Ground level retail also clashes hard with some architectural needs of university buildings. Universities like great hallways with large classrooms on the ground level. Ground level is where a lot of the daily activities happen, students hang out, classes are held. Higher up is where faculty, departments, libraries, smaller class rooms and labs hide. On the other hand, scientists and engineers prefer to sit on the ground, if not under ground (see UMD, purple line, vibrations).

If a University doesn't want to program ground-level space as for-rent retail, that's fine by me - so long as those active, day to day uses that you speak of (the kinds of things that happen in a Student Union, for example) are designed in such a way that activates the street. A lot of these university buildings already have the requisite uses, they're just turned to face the inside of buildings rather than the street.

Likewise, the notion that ground floor retail takes away from the grand entrance that the college powers that be have in mind is just absurd - same as the preconception that you can't do research in a mixed use, urban building. Hogwash.

by Alex B. on Jun 11, 2010 9:48 am • link • report

This is great! As an AU alum, it's good to see that they're finally expanding the crowded dorms so its students can live in dare I say *humane* conditions.

What I don't understand is the apparent discord between the neighbors and the administration. The neighbors don't want to see any expansion of dorms, but don't want students living in nearby houses. The administration wants juniors and seniors to move off campus into the neighborhood, but still wants to build dorms and keeps on accepting more students than it can comfortably handle.

by John on Jun 11, 2010 11:27 am • link • report

@Jasper -- There is already some retail in the Foxhall Square building. I don't really see the value of additional retail, nor the likely demand, as that building has lost several tenants in the last year (not just Balducci's). As to your point about neighbors and universities wanting different things, there is already a dispute over the Balducci's space. AU plans to lease it to a cafeteria-style restaurant, but a number of neighbors have objected basically because they want AU to cater to them instead of students. As a neighbor I see this as a business decision: Balducci's couldn't make enough money; a restaurant sees an opportunity. Why shouldn't they lease the space. Anyway, it does highlight the point about different needs. There's plenty of retail space within a short drive (or bus or walk/bike) for area residents anyway, both on Mass. Ave. and at Friendship Heights.

by ah on Jun 11, 2010 11:39 am • link • report

The neighbors don't want to see any expansion of dorms, but don't want students living in nearby houses.

John -- are they the same neighbors? The ones with the biggest objection are in Westover Place, where the parking lot will be turned into several dorms (despite a tree buffer). I'm not sure how a parking lot is more attractive, but apparently it is. That's Wesley Heights more or less.

Meanwhile, the neighbors who don't like off-campus housing are in AU Park and other places where there's more student housing (not too much in WH). So some neighbors may support the dorms because they're not in their backyard.

by ah on Jun 11, 2010 11:45 am • link • report

GW has made great strides in enlivening its main campus in Foggy Bottom with retail stores and services. The historic Quigley's Pharmacy building at the heart of the campus now houses Tonic bar & restaurant. There are sandwich and coffee shops in the ground floor of the Elliott School of International Affairs building, the Potomac Residence Hall and at Ivory Towers on 23rd Street. There is a food court and other eateries in the student union (Marvin Center) and there is even a Starbucks at the street level of Gelman Library! Plus all the retail shops and eateries in Red Lion Row (2000 Penn.) and elsewhere on Pennsylvania Avenue and other surrounding streets. The current GW Campus Plan calls for Eye (I) Street to become a main street of retail shops and cafes - this include the ground level of the Square 54 Development across from the Foggy Bottom-GW Metro station and GW Hospital and stretching east along Eye Street for three blocks to Pennsylvania Avenue.

by Loyal Colonial on Jun 11, 2010 12:30 pm • link • report

@ Alex B: Maybe I'm not getting this, but what's the problem with retail on the ground floor of a research building?

If there's a store name hanging on the front door, it's not the name of the university. Universities like to advertise themselves. Secondly, it's the loss of a floor. With the DC height restriction, space is very valuable. Loosing a floor on a 8-floor building is loosing 12.5% of your space. You go tell grad students that they can't have a minuscule cubicle because of the store downstairs. Finally, as I mentioned, in the case of a science and engineering building, some experiments don't like vibrations, so you want to be on ground level, or below.

A lot of these university buildings already have the requisite uses, they're just turned to face the inside of buildings rather than the street.

That is sometimes true, not nearly always. On GW and Georgetown campus, I can't think of many inward oriented buildings, other than the parking garages. The are doors everywhere with students from one building to another. Not all doors are open to the general public, but they are to campus residents.

Likewise, the notion that ground floor retail takes away from the grand entrance that the college powers that be have in mind is just absurd - same as the preconception that you can't do research in a mixed use, urban building. Hogwash.

I think the two are very different notions. Nobody is contesting you can't do research in a mixed use building. [Well, I'm ignoring UMDs fight against the purple line here.] I'm just saying that not every building/department is handy for mixed use. For instance, buildings where animal testing is done need to be secured in all kinds of ways. For the safety of the animals, researchers, demonstrators and the public.

by Jasper on Jun 11, 2010 12:48 pm • link • report

@Jasper

I don't want to get bogged down in specifics, because I'm speaking generally here. If you want to object to neighbors requesting s certain kind of retail, that's one thing - community groups have a tendency to demand a hardware store or some other retail type without any real consideration of the market required to support it, etc.

However, if you're speaking about the configuration of the raw building space, that's different. The first floor can and absolutely should be designed and built in a way that supports good retail and good urbanism. Don't like the logo? You can design around that. What matters is the use.

For inward oriented buildings, I can think of a bunch on GW's campus. I don't mean that classrooms should have doors to the outside, but I can think of a couple of food court type places where the 'storefronts' face inside the building, not the street. Likewise, there are places where the non-retail ground floor uses could have much more engaging streetscape designs - windows to see inside the building, etc. This isn't about losing space, either - all these uses are already extant in many of GW's buildings - it's a matter of design and space orientation. Likewise, if they want to design the 'front door' to the building to be more prominent than the retail spaces, that can be easily done as well.

Loss of space? Space is always at a premium - somehow I don't think grad students would be getting any more cubicle space without that Gap there...

And of course not every research building is suited for mixed use - then that's a failing of the University for trying to insert those uses into a site that should be used for something else. If GWU wanted to put an animal testing facility in Square 54, they would deserve to be ridiculed for such a wrongheaded notion - these universities do not operate in a vacuum, they are partners in the city, they do not control it.

In short, I don't buy any of your explanations. None of them excuse universities from not creating buildings that interact with the city in and around them.

by Alex B. on Jun 11, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

Alex: What "bunch of buildings" at GW's main campus in Foggy Bottom are "inward oriented?" GW has the most open and public campus of any college/university in the nation's capital. Fully woven into the city grid, public streets run north/south and east/west throughout the Foggy Bottom campus. All buildings have main entrances on public streets. I think you are confused, because the main George Washington campus, located in the heart of central DC, is a model of public openness and accessibility.

by Loyal Colonial on Jun 11, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report

@Loyal Colonial,

I'll fully admit that I'm not the most familiar with the inner workings of GWU's campus buildings, but several of the buildings that I have been in have food court-type retail that could easily be facing the street. Likewise, from just walking in the area, you can tell that many of the older academic buildings from the 60s era do not conform to good urban principles, they turn their backs on the street, etc. I'm sorry I can't recall the exact names. The Marvin Center, for example, could be much better.

GWU is indeed fully woven into the grid, but that puts the onus on them even more to conform to good urban design. Campus settings (such as Georgetown or AU or Catholic) are different - in this post, the proposal would be to make AU's outward facing parts of campus (those against Nebraska and Mass Ave) more urban.

by Alex B. on Jun 11, 2010 6:26 pm • link • report

@ Alex B: but several of the buildings that I have been in have food court-type retail that could easily be facing the street.

I can think of several options here.

1) 2000 Penn. GW does not own the entire block, much to their chagrin. Stores go outside for what they own.

2) The place at 23rd and F (?) St. Small underground food court. No advertising allowed. See following point.

3) J-St. GW (and the vendors inside) would very much like to point this more outwards, but it is bound by DC rules (!) that prevent it from doing so. After all, GW is not zoned as commercial space.

There is an interesting tension between GW owning virtually all property on campus, but being dissected by a city-owned and neglected street grid. GW would very much like to own the streets and maintain them, but DC does not want this, and hold GW to the same rules and regulations it holds all other citizens. The results: ugly neglected streets, flanked by well maintained flower beds on GW property.

GW has in fact a lot of retail in it's buildings. Aside from 2000 Penn, and J-St, there's a Starbucks, a Subway, a bar, and some more stores that I am forgetting. Block 54 will has retail on most of the ground level. GW is bending over backwards to please the neighborhood.

GW has pretty much all the retail in Foggy Bottom. I challenge you to find retail in other large land owners in Foggy Bottom. State Dept? Nup. IMF/Worldbank? No. Red Cross? Nothing. Federal Gov't? None. Any of the resident apartment buildings? Nup. Exception: The Watergate has a small Giant. And there are a few neighborhood stores that live of students.

Here's a question: Why is it up to GW, an academic institution, to provide retail in a neighborhood where everybody else cites safety, noise and littering as a reason not to?

Don't like the logo? You can design around that. What matters is the use.

It's not about the logo. It's about the fact that it's not GW's logo hanging there. DC rules actually prevent GW from slapping its name all to obvious all over the place. That's the reason why there are so many status of GW around. They're "art" and that's allowed. GW owns the place and paid top dollar for the ground. But DC specifically forbids any GW signage on the public streets. Imagine, people knowing where they are!

Loss of space? Space is always at a premium - somehow I don't think grad students would be getting any more cubicle space without that Gap there...

Well, that's your lack of faith in the academic intention. If GW were allowed to build and extra floor, I'm sure there would be no problem.

If GWU wanted to put an animal testing facility in Square 54, they would deserve to be ridiculed for such a wrongheaded notion

They do so across the street from block 54 in the medical facilities. If you want to block animal testing in DC, you're banning virtually all medical research from DC. Not very inclusive. DC would have very few hospitals left if it would ban animal testing for research purposes. And it's not like DC has too many hospitals.

Your notion that animal testing is to be ridiculed is a sign of ignorance on the importance of animal testing. I you feel that strongly, then be a man and refuse medicines that have been tested on animals. My guess is you prefer your own life and that of your loved ones over that of animals.

these universities do not operate in a vacuum, they are partners in the city, they do not control it.

Partnerships are fine. As long as they're not abusive and one-sided. Universities are academic institutions. Their mission is hindered by other activities. up to a certain point, universities are more than willing to be good neighbors. However, it feels that all universities do is provide their neighbors with proverbial cups of sugar. But they never get anything in return other than requests for more sugar.

It is DC that is not showing any interest in partnerships with the universities. States have research budgets. Public and private academic institutions can apply for state grants and benefit from being in a state. States in return benefits from the academic research in their state, because it attracts private enterprise and prestige. DC's research budget? Zero.

You are right, universities do not control their surroundings. But can they have some control over their own property? Not so much, if I hear you.

by Jasper on Jun 12, 2010 10:11 pm • link • report

Well, I don't really care to get into a line by line debate - I will say that I think you greatly misread my position on animal testing as an academic exercise - I merely took your example and noted that some university research subjects might not be good fits for urban environments. If you can make it work, that's great - but that doesn't excuse GW or any other institution in the city from meeting the basic partnership of urbanism and city life.

As far as DC's research budget, how many American cities have such budgets? DC serves many state functions, but it is most definitely not a state.

As far as control over property, how is GW different from any other private land owner?

by Alex B. on Jun 12, 2010 11:27 pm • link • report

Alex: I agree that some buildings from the 1960's on GW's Foggy Bottom campus, like the Marvin Center and Funger Hall, were built with limited entrances and fenestration. This was unfortunately in the spirit of the "bunker mentality" architecture of the time, e.g. the FBI building on Pa. Ave. and several large federal buildings in SW DC. But you have to give GW credit for renovating Marvin Center recently, with a dramatic glass entrance and Great Hall facing 21st Street and adding a big expansion of the J Street food court towards H Street with a huge window facing the street. Funger Hall has been renovated with more stairs and ramps leading to the ground floor and the building is connected by glass passageways to the new B-School building (Duques Hall). More recent buildings constructed by the university have stores and cafes at the street level, along with many entrances and windows. If you want to talk about inwardly focused campuses, you should look at the ones that are more traditonally situated as a compound - AU, GU, CUA, etc.

by Loyal Colonial on Jun 13, 2010 2:19 am • link • report

@ Alex b: I don't really care to get into a line by line debate

Well, don't make generalized statements that can be refused line by line.

I merely took your example and noted that some university research subjects might not be good fits for urban environments.

True. Agriculture isn't. Telescopes don't do well due to light pollution. But animal testing is perfectly possible. It happens in every major city with a major hospital. Doesn't even need to be academic. You just need a limited access building.

but that doesn't excuse GW or any other institution in the city from meeting the basic partnership of urbanism and city life.

To have a partnership, you need two partners (at minimum). Currently, DC is not a partner.

As far as DC's research budget, how many American cities have such budgets? DC serves many state functions, but it is most definitely not a state.

I am not aware of city research grants. I can imagine large cities do have some. Don't know. However, by providing no support for research whatsoever (in any way, shape or form), the District shows it has no interest in being a partner with research institutions, be it academic or commercial. You can't be a partner without playing.

by Jasper on Jun 13, 2010 5:12 pm • link • report

@Jasper,

I'm speaking generally for a very good reason - there are some very general principles that make for quality urbanism - all I'm saying is that the universities in DC located in settings with an urban design need to adhere to those principles.

'Campus' areas are different, and present different design challenges.

Again, you're the one who brought up animal testing and all of the spatial requirements such a facility has. I'm well aware that all sorts of research will require various and different spatial parameters. That's fine. My point is that if those parameters don't mesh well with the principles of good urbanism, then the University needs to compromise.

I certainly don't mean to single out GWU, either. You mention the State Dept, and GSA is certainly a tricky stakeholder to deal with when trying to get buildings that function well in cities.

As far as research grants go, again - DC is not a state. As it is, DC has a structural imbalance in terms of costs and tax base that puts the District in the hole before we even get started. I certainly support government research grants, I just can't see how that could possibly be a priority for DC. Perhaps a better approach would be to try and get some preferential treatment from the Feds for the lack of DC's state status.

Regarding DC being a partner, I'll put this rhetorical question out there again: As far as control over property, how is GW different from any other private land owner?

I think the answer is important, and that's precisely the reason I'm trying to stick to general principles here.

by Alex B. on Jun 13, 2010 6:12 pm • link • report

@ Alex B: As far as control over property, how is GW different from any other private land owner?

Universities are not different than other owners. However, if you want to force them to do the same as others, then they are three-eye in the land of the blind. Universities are trying to be good urban neighbors. Now if their neighbors would behave the same, DC would get better. There is no reason why academic institutions should be held to different standards than the federal government, apartment buildings and other large land owners, we've named a few.

The point that frustrates them is that they are held to a different standard. A much higher standard.

by Jasper on Jun 13, 2010 7:22 pm • link • report