This is fantastice! And rather than forcing sidewalks on everyone, this is an area where the District could really make a difference. I.e., Find ways to do better the things it does ... Rather than trying to social engineer people's lives as we've been seeing of late. And Alex, you did a great job in presenting 'how it works' and 'what it looks like when completed' ... as well as stating the benefits. Great job.

by Lance on Sep 1, 2010 10:45 am • link • report

Really great to see this put into action, is this the city or developers doing this? Would be great to see the city being pro-active with this. Is there any information on the capacity of these bio-retention areas, or how extreme pollutants such as oils and poisons will affect the plants in the area? I like the idea, but street storm water run off is some real nasty stuff that usually does a good job of killing organic life when concentrated. Still really cool, and glad to see the city make strides.

by Joe on Sep 1, 2010 10:50 am • link • report

By itself it is a small change, but as these kinds of facilities get institutionalized city wide it will pay off with much cleaner rivers.

by David C on Sep 1, 2010 10:50 am • link • report

That's pretty damned cool. I noticed on the flyer I received for the new Gage Eckington park that there's a rain garden, but I don't know exactly what that means. I suppose it's something similar.

by jcm on Sep 1, 2010 10:51 am • link • report

@Lance, I'm with you. I'm tired of the District forcing sidewalks on everyone - stupid social engineering. Along the same lines, here are some other things the city forces on everyone as part of it's failed social engineering.

1. Street lights - I drive with my eyes closed, and none of your social engineering will change that
2. Trash cans - I'm tired of these being forced on me
3. Street Trees - they block my view of the street
4. Benches - I'll sit where I want to sit, stupid planners. Stop engineering my life!
5. Public restrooms - same as above

Lance, together we can this madness. First they came to build sidewalks and I said nothing...

by David C on Sep 1, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

Clearly this is only more reason to vote for Vince Gray.

by Max B. on Sep 1, 2010 11:10 am • link • report

If you disagree with the need to revamp the district's stormwater management system, go check out the Anacostia after a big storm. The layer of trash and sewage that pours into the river (almost literally) covers its entire surface for several days afterward, and in some severe cases actually makes the river unnavigable for small boats.

by andrew on Sep 1, 2010 11:50 am • link • report

Every (almost) type of new development should have this system. Agree or disagree?

by Zac on Sep 1, 2010 12:09 pm • link • report

Out of curiosity, why don't the tree boxes (pits?) extend all the way out to the curb? That tiny strip of concrete is wide enough to invite pedestrians to walk on it, but too narrow for it to actually be safe to do so. (Looking at these pictures, I also keep envisioning a cycle track between the trees and sidewalk -- it'd be the perfect place for one!)

I also notice that there's a whole lot of "stuff" between the street and sidewalk here. Although that's not necessarily a bad thing, it does reduce access to the sidewalk, and also reduces interactions between the street and the sidewalk (which may be important along local streets such as this one).

I don't mean to take away from what's been done here, because it's by all means fantastic. However, it never hurts to improve upon a good idea if we're looking for it to be replicated elsewhere!

by andrew on Sep 1, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

The narrow 1-2' strip between the curb and tree pit is known as a 'parking egress' and is there to allow people parking on-street to have a surface to get out of the car on. It helps to prevent people from stepping in the planters, the compaction can quickly alter the effectiveness of stormwater treatment planters. Overall they look great; all future development should require more natural stormwater management systems!

by DBLarsen on Sep 1, 2010 12:51 pm • link • report

@David C, Social Engineering is when 'the few' think they know what is best for the rest of humanity, and force changes related to that on the whole. When the city puts sidewalks in a neighborhood without the concurrence of that neighborhood ... because it is being pushed to do so by a few people who think they know it all ... than that is social engineering. All the examples you give are things that couldn't have happened without general currence of those affected ... nor would they have happened without that concurrence. Something like 'sidewalks on every street in DC' would never enjoy that concurrence because most people see the stupidity of applying the 'one size fits all' solution to a problem that doesn't even exist to begin with. Go ask the people living on these streets what they think, and I know you'll get your answer quickly enough.

by Lance on Sep 1, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

@DBLarson Aha! That makes sense. Definitely been "trapped" in my car by some of the treeboxes in NW.

by andrew on Sep 1, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

Lance -- So "general concurrence" really means concurrence of local homeowners?

by aaa on Sep 1, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report

I hope these practices are made standard for all new construction and re-construction of sidewalks. Porous pavement should become the new norm.

by Malcolm Kenton on Sep 1, 2010 3:05 pm • link • report

For an example of where where the LID zones have been incorporated into the streetscape by the private sector check out 1st St NE between M and N in NoMa at the Constitution Square project. Half the block is still under construction and the other half has been completed for months so you can get a feel for how they are built and how they look at the end of the day. The design is different but the key elements remain the same. I've watched them during the heavy rains we received recently - they are very effective. Good to see this in other parts of the city.

by mhoek on Sep 1, 2010 3:31 pm • link • report

I would really love to love this idea, but it sounds like it's going to be problematic in practice. Those boxes will become ponds anytime a storm rolls through and the vegetation will likely suffer from the excess water inundations, erosion, and street contamination.

Has this design been deployed successfully somewhere before?

by Greg on Sep 1, 2010 3:35 pm • link • report

Social Engineering is when 'the few' think they know what is best for the rest of humanity, and force changes related to that on the whole.

Oh, so like the Committee of 100?

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 1, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report

Oh nevermind, the C100 forces people to not change.

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 1, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report

@Lance Social Engineering is when 'the few' think they know what is best for the rest of humanity, and force changes related to that on the whole. So when the people who live in a neighborhood overrule the decisions of the democratically elected government that represents everyone, who is the few and who is "the whole"?

When the city puts sidewalks in a neighborhood without the concurrence of that neighborhood ... because it is being pushed to do so by a few people who think they know it all ... i.e. the elected officials and their legally appointed/confirmed deputies entrusted to make such decisions
than that is social engineering. No it's general sovereignty superseding local sovereignty a.k.a government. All the examples you give are things that couldn't have happened without general currence of those affected ... nor would they have happened without that concurrence. Which only matters if you think the concurrence of neighbors is a primary concern (and neighborhoods have complained about benches, streetlights and even trees in the past) Something like 'sidewalks on every street in DC' would never enjoy that concurrence because most people see the stupidity of applying the 'one size fits all' solution to a problem that doesn't even exist to begin with. Well then, they'll surely demonstrate that by voting District councilmembers out of office.
Go ask the people living on these streets what they think, and I know you'll get your answer quickly enough. That doesn't matter. Look if everyone in a neighborhood doesn't want a sidewalk on the street but the rest of the city does, you seem to think the neighborhood trumps the city. But what if everyone on a street wanted a sidewalk, but one guy didn't? Would it be reasonable to skip his yard? Would building it against his wishes be social engineering? We live in a larger community and sometimes what neighbors want doesn't mesh well with what the larger community needs. Grown-ups accept that.

by David C on Sep 1, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report

If we had fewer sidewalks in parts of town where locals don't want them, we'd have better storm water management.

And @DavidC - I get it that you support sidewalks uber alles, but you're seriously comparing a low-level bureaucrat who approves the sidewalk installation schedule to some great defender of the concepts of democracy, liberty and sovereignty?

The fetishization of the noble, dedicated, and righteous DC gov't bureaucrat extends only so long as that faithful defender of the public's virtues is doing stuff that the commentariat here supports.

Had the same guy in the short-sleeve shirt and tie made a decision that "the rest of the city supports" but that this blog opposes, well, I'm sure we know how that discussion would be faring.

Unwanted sidewalks and unaffordable streetcars. That's what Urbanism has become.

by Fritz on Sep 1, 2010 4:50 pm • link • report

Had the same guy in the short-sleeve shirt and tie made a decision that "the rest of the city supports" but that this blog opposes, well, I'm sure we know how that discussion would be faring.

Instead of telling me how if A were B, we'd be hypocrites; why not find an example of actual hypocrisy.

by David C on Sep 1, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report

As a civil engineer I love this practise. The only negative thing I can say about them is how they look after a few months or years. Every tiny/large piece of trash from the parking lot gets washed into theses structures. More often than not they are not maintained properly and end up looking trashy. Dont worry about the plants. They are guidelines to selecting plants that will survuve the frequent flooding.

by Stu on Sep 1, 2010 6:32 pm • link • report

@Stu

Id rather trash collect in a tree box, where it can be picked up (and used to shame people) then be allowed to flow in a river where nobody sees it.

by JJJJJ on Sep 1, 2010 11:15 pm • link • report

These plants will die after a winter. All of the salty sludge that melts off after winter storms will gather in these boxes, quickly raising the salinity of the soil to an extent that no halophobic plants could survive. Mature trees could hack it, but all of the other greenery might not make it.

Additionally, if the water doesn't drain right away, these things will breed mosquitoes like nobody's business during the summer.

On balance, a really interesting idea though!

by Ryan on Sep 2, 2010 12:20 am • link • report

This type of stormwater management was championed in Portland a few years ago.

http://goo.gl/O1mP

by don on Sep 2, 2010 6:38 am • link • report

These look really neat and seem like a great idea. One concern, though, is what happens during a massive rainfall; would the boxes ever saturate and flood, and then cause the street to flood?

by resident on Sep 5, 2010 11:18 am • link • report

Re: flooding. I need to go over and see how these are constructed, but they might have some 'standpipes' several inches above the dirt in the boxes that serve as a means of taking excess rainfall directly into the storm drains.

by don on Sep 5, 2010 11:50 am • link • report

It's a start in the right direction!

One disappointment: "note the drainage layers of soil and gravel to be added." Note the garbage that's already become one of those layers! Seriously?

by AKR on Sep 7, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report