Development
Will Wal-Mart be urban? Part 3: New Jersey Avenue
Following Wal-Mart's announcement that they will build four stores in the District of Columbia, this is the third in a four-part series examining the urban design of each proposal. Today: New Jersey Avenue.
This is by far the best of the proposals. Located on the fringes of downtown, it is appropriately dense and mixed-use. The building will be five floors, with small format retail lining the H Street sidewalk, Wal-Mart behind, parking underground, and 315 apartments on the upper floors.

Rendering of this proposal, looking northeast from the corner of H Street and 1st Street, NW.
Curiously, the building doesn't actually touch New Jersey Avenue. Rather, the proposal extends First Street partially through the site to create two small blocks where there is currently one large block. The leftover block between First and New Jersey will be developed as a separate office building, presumably with ground floor retail (though that is not confirmed).
It might be more appropriate to refer to this as the H Street Wal-Mart. By putting the main entrance to Wal-Mart and several smaller stores directly on H Street, this building will help pull together the extant retail districts to the east and west. It will contribute significantly to the growth of H Street as a major continuous shopping district running from the CityCenter development at the old convention center site, through Chinatown, and then east to the Atlas District. Combined with the I-395 air rights development, this part of the city will soon be dramatically more active.
The architects deserve credit too. Unlike the Target at DCUSA, which has a plain, strip mall-like facade, the Wal-Mart proposal here calls for a building with traditional, human-scale details. Cornices, individual multi-pane windows, an interesting corner feature at the main entrance, and a thoughtful elevator shaft. This is a fully urban, fully pedestrian friendly building.
All the familiar social and economic questions about Wal-Mart remain, but urbanistically and architecturally, this proposal hits the mark. It may be the most well-executed new urban big box department store in America.
Unfortunately, calls to the developer seeking additional details were not returned. More renderings (though not a site plan) are available thanks to Jonathan O'Connell of the Washington Post Business page.
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools






I see the parking lot entrance causing problems due to its location it should have instead been on the I street side there will be a huge amount of people walking down first street.
by kk on Nov 24, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
by Paul on Nov 24, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report
by Josh C. on Nov 24, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report
by Thayer-D on Nov 24, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report
by Eric Fidler on Nov 24, 2010 2:45 pm • link • report
It might. We're all confused on that point. Hopefully we'll get a clarification soon.
by BeyondDC on Nov 24, 2010 2:51 pm • link • report
Don't forget about the Union Station air rights, too. That's going to be a huge part of connecting Near NE and NW.
by OctaviusIII on Nov 24, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report
by Charmaine on Nov 24, 2010 3:52 pm • link • report
by Charmaine on Nov 24, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report
Not to mention the Burhnam Place development above the Union Station railyards (which I hope involves some way to bring sunlight to the train platforms so that rail passengers aren't scurrying to and from trains in the dark underbelly of a building).
by Malcolm K on Nov 24, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report
So, also and in other words, 'parking' needs to consider 'bike parking' in addition to 'car parking'.
The bike parking should be very near the entrance to the store (priority: pedestrian access, then disabled car/other parking, bike parking, and finally car parking) in a very well-lit area, not around any hidden corners, with plenty of room to maneuver, with appropriately-placed bike racks, etc.
And, though not necessarily part of the purview (?) of this store or any store, perhaps it should be -- the responsibility for granting appropriate bicycle access to and from the store - for regular bikes, for cargo bikes, etc. The sidewalk/curb cub situation is addressed by these new stores, but not the bike-travel infrastructure, as least not as much, and maybe that's the way it has to be, but I like the idea of new developments of this size being responsible for working with the city on how they're going to handle/accommodate new traffic to/from/through the area - including bike traffic. Too often we're still bolting on skimpy/near-useless bike lanes after the fact, when we need to start getting the transportation aspect right first. It seems like we're always handling the walk/car aspects of the transportation plan, possibly even the transit aspect, but bikes are last to the party. and that makes me cry. :(
:)
by Peter Smith on Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm • link • report
Your point about bakfiets type delivery stuff, I sort of touched on in a post of my own about the Walmart issue, in terms of outlining TDM strategies employed by Ikea at their Red Hook store in Brooklyn, as well as their stores in Denmark.
WRT the latter, Ikea will lend, free, the use of bicycles with trailers, to transport purchases home.
Rather than merely being ecstatic that the stores are coming into the city, DC should in fact try (although almost nothing in the zoning code provides the leverage to do so) to get Walmart to institute a number of pro-urban practices with regard to design, mixed use development, and transportation demand management policies and practices.
by Richard Layman on Nov 25, 2010 9:39 am • link • report
Ikea not only does the trailer bicycles for free in Denmark, in Europe Ikea takes care of its employees, providing them decent salaries, paid vacations and medical, and is still a very competitive world retailer that does not need to exploit their employees or forbid their unions.
by Mar on Nov 25, 2010 8:25 pm • link • report
from Wikipedia's Denmark entry...
The large public sector (30% of the entire workforce on a full-time basis[13]) is financed by the world's highest taxes[14]. A value added tax of 25% is levied on the sale of most goods and services (including groceries). The income tax in Denmark ranges from 42.9%[14] to 63% progressively, levied on 4 out of 10 full-time employees[15].
Denmark's business climate functions differently from ours. Ikea employees may get decent salaries but they have to turn around and hand much more of it over to the government.
by pqresident on Nov 25, 2010 11:39 pm • link • report
I find myself in USA paying almost the same taxes as I did in Europe, however I do not seem to get as much in return.
Back in Europe you'd get full medical, full college education, paid 30 day vacation, paid months of maternity leave, free chilcare...it changes fron one country to other but they all follow similar guidelines.
It is all a matter of preference which system you prefer, I did work for Maersk in Coppenhaggen, I did not make much less than I did here, but the benefits I got in return were huge. I guess is a matter of personal choice. My family is here so I returned
by Mar on Nov 26, 2010 2:25 am • link • report
by Charmaine on Nov 27, 2010 11:14 am • link • report
this reminded me of a headline i just saw:
Experts call for ban on HGVs in Britain's cities to protect cyclists:
we need to continue to plan to have fewer and fewer dangerous vehicles in The City -- there is just no way to make cycling safe, much less feel safe, as long as we have these monsters roaming the streets. we cyclists can't just avoid trucks -- they would also have to avoid us -- and that's just not possible. so, i'm glad to see this formal recommendation, and hope DC and every other city/town follows suit.Moscow is also talking a truck ban, but their reasoning is 'traffic' and 'pollution'.
and, regarding the TDM stuff that @Richard often talks about, it seems with the rapidly-evolving DC transportation scene, any large/significant developments should have to plan for how they are going to fit into the current city at launch/grand opening/go time, and how to are going to stay current with the city's transportation mix five years out, ten years out, etc. in theory, major developments should help to encourage transportation progress, instead of just acting like more deadweight (or worse). so, maybe Walmart could surprise DC and start out with super-high quality cargo/bike parking -- more than is actually needed at first, and a plan to convert car parking spaces to bike parking when the time comes.
by Peter Smith on Nov 29, 2010 4:51 am • link • report
Add a Comment