Maybe if DC had a less strict height limit there would be more affordable housing in the district. Escalating rents indicate a surfeit of supply.

by EJ on Mar 3, 2011 9:35 am  

Having never seen the tank in question nor knowing any reason why they want to change it to a baseball I'd prefer a globe because I like geography more than baseball.

by Canaan on Mar 3, 2011 9:45 am  

I've got to admit that I'm siding with the Heritage Foundation on this one (ick). As long as the addition is architecturally consistent, I really have no objections.

The WCP commentator hit it on the head perfectly with the comparison to 2nd & G, where an entire block of well-maintained historic rowhouses were razed to construct a parking lot (it's pretty clear at this point that the developer never had the intent or resources to build anything on the site). To add insult to the injury, the lot is adjacent to *another* surface lot, a large underground garage, and about two entire empty blocks on H St.

by andrew on Mar 3, 2011 10:08 am  

Also, can we pause for the irony that the conservative Heritage Foundation spent over $5m on a tiny rowhouse?

by andrew on Mar 3, 2011 10:09 am  

I wouldn't call an organization funded by the super-rich that advocates policies that directly benefit the super-rich spending $5m on a rowhouse "ironic."

I'd call it exactly what we'd expect.

by MLD on Mar 3, 2011 10:26 am  

The Historic Presevation Act under which the District's Historic Districts are protected, specifically says that all exterior facades, including the back/alley side are protected under its regulations. Yet, HPRB (and most of the historic preservation groups) have been very lenient in how this is interpreted. Lenient to the extent that if someone wants to add an extra addition, they let them do it as long as its not too visible from the front side (i.e., the street). This is despite their actually having the law behind them to so 'no, you can't add this addition even if it has a set back from the front, because it'll still be visible from the alley ... and your neighbors' homes behind you. And this is what happened here. The HPRB and the CHRS allowed what really is something which the Heritage Foundation wouldn't be due if it were being strict constructionists with the District's Historic Preservation Laws. But then despite being allowed to 'skate' ... they wanted more. It's a slippery slope.

Inciddentally, personally, I think we should enforce the preservation laws on the alley sides as well as the street sides given that for most of us the back yard is probably more the center of our lives in our houses than the front yard. Maybe the Heritage Foundation will come in in favor or strictly constructing the preservation laws? I doubt it. And that 3rd floor addition really is in appropriate to the house it was placed on.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2011 10:41 am  

I also wanted to comment on this "The Heritage Foundation added a tasteful third floor addition to a Capitol Hill rowhouse."

No serious news outlet would use the word 'tasteful' about an issue it is reporting on when the issue itself is controversial. GGW really should have a policy against such biased words from its contributors. If the contributors want to use those kinds of qualifiers down in the thread that is one thing, but the news article itself shouldn't .... lest the writer is willing to lose all credibility in their reporting capabilities.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2011 10:44 am  

I think CHRS and HPRB are complete hypocrites and bend and break any and all rules to suit their whims. There was a house on Prince Of Petworth that clearly violated historic standards. It was an attractive house, but it was clearly a modern take on a brick row house (Stainless steel industrial front door, modern arches and glass walls visible from the street).

It follows that HPRB uses fungible rules just like the rest of city government though. The problem with fungible rules is that they encourage corruption.

by ahk on Mar 3, 2011 10:56 am  

ahk: Petworth isn't a historic district, so they probably had no involvement in that one.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2011 10:57 am  

So the union is admitting that its members are breaking the law?

Concealed carry is illegal in DC, period. In Maryland, its possible, but extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

by DCArea2 on Mar 3, 2011 10:58 am  

I wonder how much of the increase in commercial property is directly related to the new valuation model they are using.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2011 11:01 am  

The Studio Theater building and the Universal Gear Building on 14th are perfect examples of how to build innovative roof additions consistent with HPRB rules. Both are world-class modern additions. Don't imitate the original in a way that makes the original building look as if it were larger than it was historically. DC is pretty liberal on roof additions but of course that won't satisfy "do what I want to" types.

The rich and the poor are well taken care of by DC in all areas, including housing. But neither contributes much financially to the city. Those that do, the wage-earning middle and upper middle class, have a very hard time affording housing in DC. But expensive high rises don't help them.

by Tom Coumaris on Mar 3, 2011 11:06 am  

I am pleased to say that last night I saw ---7--- metro police officers patrolling the L'Enfant Plaza Metro station. This is very promising, and I hope the Metro Transit Police continue to have officers patrol ALL of the metro stations...

There is one problem though...

When there are 7 officers at one station (such as L'Enfant) where would you have them all patrol? In my opinion, I would want two on the lower platform, and maybe two on each side of the upper platform... I say two because it is human nature to stop and socialize with your co-workers, realistically you could do this with one officer.

The problem that i was alluding to above was that all 7 of these officers were sitting on the upper platform on the southbound side chatting with eachother. One or two officers kept branching off and looking around, clearly feeling they weren't being productive, but the remaining officers were just having a good time...

Many malls that have guards patrolling them have a tracking system to ensure the guards don't loiter in one place for too long... these systems require the guard to touch their token (something like a smartrip card)to a sensor so that their movements are tracked.
(http://www.guard1.com)

by BradK on Mar 3, 2011 11:11 am  

I can't think of a better example of historic preservation overreach than this. They've overplayed their hand. This kind of historic preservation is detrimental to the city. It is not a positive contribution. It's also the reason that preservation finds itself losing support since they are embracing good (and yes, tasteful) modifications and adaptations like this.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2011 11:13 am  

the historic preservation people cave when it comes down to any organization with deep pockets that could make life miserable for them- or also governmental authorities like the AOC, that are pretty much allowed to run roughshod over all local preservation concerns. The CHRS is mainly concerned with going after individual home owners and small property owners for tiny transgressions- which often lead to ghastly & devastating legal bills after these property owners are "turned in " to the city. Their other main concerns- actually their dominant role- is that of a general neighborhood authority that takes on issues such as parking rights , keeping out any increse in building density, discouraging new transit options that potentially interfere with parking, and they even waste time on peripheral concerns in areas outside of the historic district boundaries.
A new kind of historic preservation organization, solely dedicated to HP and not all of these control and ideological concerns needs to come to light and assume leadship. The CHRS is far too dogmatic and moribund- and it is an elitist group of mostly car-centric elderly people that allow few younger people among their controlling few.

by anti-NIMBY on Mar 3, 2011 11:49 am  

@David, I believe the reference is to a recent post on PoP about a house that's on Capitol Hill. See http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2011/02/house-of-the-day-714/

There's a discussion in the commentary about whether it's inside the Historic District or not. I don't know the address, so can't confirm whether it is.

BTW, I live inside those boundaries and think CHRS is a waste of time. There's a building two doors away that has a coax cable (likely Comcast) snaking down the front and going inside a window.

by HM on Mar 3, 2011 12:24 pm  

BTW, there are a number of egregious examples I could point to on houses all around, not just that one.

by HM on Mar 3, 2011 12:26 pm  

"Inciddentally, personally, I think we should enforce the preservation laws on the alley sides as well as the street sides given that for most of us the back yard is probably more the center of our lives in our houses than the front yard."

I'm not sure what this means. Our alley, and that of most folks I know, is quite utilitarian. We use our back yard to garden and to cook out, but it's not social like our front porch is. Unless, of course, you live a car dependent lifestyle and have off street parking, I'd say the front of the house is far more central to our life.

by TimK on Mar 3, 2011 2:18 pm  

Tom,

The rich and the poor are well taken care of by DC in all areas, including housing. But neither contributes much financially to the city.

I disagree. The city rakes in huge amounts of cash from the property taxes collected on these pricey condos. The rest of what your wrote is spot on, especially for middle-class families with children.

by Eric Fidler on Mar 3, 2011 2:26 pm  

@ahk 'I think CHRS and HPRB are complete hypocrites and bend and break any and all rules to suit their whims. There was a house on Prince Of Petworth that clearly violated historic standards. It was an attractive house, but it was clearly a modern take on a brick row house (Stainless steel industrial front door, modern arches and glass walls visible from the street).

First, David is correct, it's not a historic district. Secondly, you're confused by what you're seeing because you don't understand what historic preservation is. One area you're apparently not understanding is that historic preservation is not about creating a Disney World. I.e., Even if this house was in a historic district, it probably would be one of several correct ways to build in a historic district ... and more likely, it would be the preferable way. Historic Districts aren't meant to be 'stuck in time'. The principles behind them are meant to protect the essential elements of the historic districts. So 'the modern take' on a historic row house is at least as good, if not preferable, to trying to construct an imitation historic row house.

Unfortunately, way too many people really don't understand what historic preservation is. And because of this they make assumptions that are wrong ... and then wonder why HPRB and others seem 'inconsistent'. In general they aren't. It's just that it looks that way if you don't understand what is going on. Sort of like a child looking up at a traffic light and not noticing that the light changes colors, the child will think the adults sometimes stopping at the traffic light and sometimes not are being inconsistent ... when they're not.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2011 4:14 pm  

@Lance:

Sort of like a child looking up at a traffic light and not noticing that the light changes colors, the child will think the adults sometimes stopping at the traffic light and sometimes not are being inconsistent ... when they're not.

Ha! For a second there, I thought you were going to make it through a whole post without getting in a gratuitous dig. Kudos for not comparing ahk to a dog that keeps eating cat poop, and never quite being able to understand why his stomach doesn't feel quite right. Progress!

by oboe on Mar 3, 2011 4:22 pm  

@TimK We use our back yard to garden and to cook out, but it's not social like our front porch is.

I think you answered your own question. Given that most of us in rowhouses don't have a front porch, it's the back yard that really hosts the social life more than the front yard. One is more for show and the other more for use. (For example, you put the vegetable garden in the back yard but the flower garden in the front yard.) Also, kitchens tend to be in back. I'm not meaning to denigrate the need for protection for the front of the house, but I think that the rear deserves equal protection. HPRB only caring about the front of the house (counter to what the law says) sends a bad message that 'we don't care if the basic elements of the neighborhood changes, as long as the 'pretty facades' don't ... And that's very superficial to me. Historic Preservation laws are meant to preserve the essense of a historic neighborhood. And without giving attention to the rears of the properties, how can you do that? I mean if you let someone come in an tear down a row of houses EXCEPT for their front facades and put up a building behind them, have you really done historic presentation? Or created something that is false?

by Lance on Mar 3, 2011 4:26 pm  

Well, Lance, if we really want "to preserve the essense of a historic neighborhood", we should put shanties and alley dwellings in the back of our houses.

by TimK on Mar 3, 2011 5:20 pm