Posts about Dupont Circle

Can you imagine if Shake Shack could replace one of the kiosks on the Mall? The one closest to the Castle would be my pick, and I can imagine customers going for a ride on the carousel before or after their meals. This location gets heavy tourist traffic, and I bet an exciting cafe would lure locals as well.

Constitution Gardens is severely underutilized, and the kiosk there is rarely visited, yet it has a beautiful setting by the artificial lake, with a view of the Washington Monument, and is steps from the reflecting pool. These facilities are controlled by the National Park Service, with a contracted vendor operating the facilities. Whatever method the Park Service uses to award contracts, this process needs to be re-evaluated in order to attract higher quality services.

Off the Mall, the trio of K Street parks could also use a commercial boost. Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square are all underutilized, and would benefit from a small structure. Realistically, only Franklin park would be large enough to not be overwhelmed by something the size of Shake Shack.

A better option is further north. Dupont Circle is the most vibrant park in the city, surrounded by an ideal mix of businesses, hotels, offices, residential, and more. The circle itself may not be the best location for a commercial structure, but just west of the circle in reservation 59 is the old Dupont Circle Comfort Station.

This building was built in 1930 at a cost of $7,841. Originally referred to as a "lodge," it contained toilet facilities and accommodations for park police (then known as park watchmen), and was electrically lighted and heated.

In 1936, a memo within the Park Police complained that the comfort station "has become the favored nightly meeting place for all the homosexuals in the city. They are here in great numbers every night, filing in and out of the comfort station in a steady stream until it is closed at midnight." In 1950, the District Commissioners requested the Park Service to close the comfort station in the hope that it would "reduce sex perversion." By the late 80s, if not earlier, the building was abandoned and locked up.

In the late 90s, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA) raised funds (about $100,000) to convert it into their community resource center. It is now used as office space for Historic Dupont Circle Main Streets, as well as the Metropolitan Police Department and DCCA. There is a small bathroom in the corner.

In the east end of the triangular park is the primary entrance to the old underground trolley station. In 1995 this led to the doomed food court dubbed Dupont Down Under, and a metal structure was added to promote the entrance. The project failed within a year, and eventually the metal structure was torn down. The stairs now are covered up and inaccessible, awaiting new development in the underground space. Nowadays you might see people lining up to board a bus to New York on the Massachusetts Ave side. The DC2NY bus makes 2 to 8 pickups per day there.

The old lodge deserves a more public use, being in such a perfect location. I would consider this the best potential spot for DC's Shake Shack, or equivalent thereof. Could DCCA be reimbursed for their renovation efforts, and suitable spaces could be found for the hosted organizations? Could the small park be landscaped to provide outdoor tables? What would it take to make this happen?

We need to work harder to find the best uses for our public spaces. There should be some way to duplicate in D.C. the success that Shake Shack has had in Madison Square Park.

Most blocks in the area have larger apartment or commercial buildings at the corners, or else grander rowhouse-sized buildings whose longer sides form the main, front entrance (like the southwest corner of 17th and S). When the entrance is on the short side, the building is often still more distinctive, taller, or otherwise anchors the row.

1641

1641

The property owner proposes to add a similar mansard roof, but with more curvature. She also wants to remove some of the rear addition to get the property down to the allowed lot occupancy, but extend the second and third floors to the rear to match the size of the first.

She would also add a bay along the 15th Street side, add windows, redo the wall along the rear yard to include brick, and rebuild the garage as an office, removing the vehicular entrance to 15th.

The house currently has multiple kitchens to allow being used as multiple units, but the owner says she and her family will occupy the entire house. She has elderly relatives she takes care of, and wants the space to accommodate them as well.

Houses of 3 stories plus a basement are very common in the area and allowed by zoning. Should historic preservation forbid the addition anyway? Is this house historically low?

Some argue it is. The third floor would not be original, and therefore not historic. This view of historic preservation holds that whatever has been, is historic, and the job of preservation is to keep historic things the way they are ("preserved.")

The HPO staff report comes down against the addition on the grounds that HPRB has traditionally not allowed additions that modify the roofline. And, in fact, HPRB has not.

Should that be an absolute rule? The Conservancy members didn't think so. In a resolution, which I wrote, they said,

While we feel that a third story addition visible from the street should only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances, the role of this building in the larger historic district and in relation to the other corners as an anchor building justifies an exception. We feel that this project would enhance the overall character of 15th Street and therefore support the project as presented.

I and other supporters argued a different view from "historic is what's existing, and preservation is about keeping what's historic the same." Instead, look at the spirit of the historic district. The U Street Historic District (which this property is in, though it's in the Dupont Circle neighborhood by most measures), as well as the adjacent Strivers' Section and Dupont Circle districts, are characterized by 2- and 3-story brick row houses and elegant corner buildings.

Right now, this house looks to be an anomaly, a missing piece in the historic fabric. If this project went forward, the historic district would seem more complete. It would fulfill what seems to be the original architectural intent of the area. And passerby would assume that this house originally had the third floor, if it's done right.

This isn't like the vinyl pop-ups of Petworth which clearly look to be incompatible. This makes the house appear more compatible.

That requires high quality materials and good workmanship. It's appropriate, and necessary, for the Conservancy, HPO, and HPRB to carefully monitor plans as they progress toward being final to ensure that this addition is of the highest quality and does look compatible with other, similar historic roofs.

DC's preservation movement has been declining in numbers and strength. The citywide historic groups do not get the numbers they once did at their events. Yet historic preservation is a valuable part of DC and shouldn't fall by the wayside. Instead, we need to redefine it in a way that works with, instead of against, sustainability, urbanism, Smart Growth, and the overall value of growing DC.

These needn't be mutually exclusive. Allowing a third floor on this house while requiring the strictest adherence to architectural quality and historically compatible materials is a great way to advance all of these goals, and to improve the overall look of the neighborhood at the same time.

I'm glad 17th and Corcoran made the list. Are the ones near you in locations you might use?

They're relatively clustered toward downtown. That's probably the right decision, as bike sharing stations increase in value the more there are nearby. Creating areas with a high density of stations will maximize the usefulness of the initial investment.

Where stations are farther out, they should meet a specific travel need, like the ones at Tenleytown, Van Ness, and AU which would serve AU students getting to and from campus and the Metro. Ditto Georgetown University and Georgetown Law. Stations in Mount Pleasant and Adams Morgan will help residents there get to nearby Metros and visitors get to the local businesses.

All of DC's universities, including those mentioned plus Howard, GW and Catholic, could improve transportation for students even more by funding a couple stations elsewhere on their own campuses.

I'm a little surprised there isn't another station on the east side of Logan Circle, near Howard University, or right at the U Street or Petworth Metro. Of course, they had to prioritize and also had to find space. I'd also move the one at 18th and R to 18th and S to be closer to the commercial strip there, but perhaps there wasn't a suitable space, or a lot of people right at 18th and R said they'd use one there in the survey.

One seemed to get on the Mall, at 3rd in front of the Capitol, despite reported NPS opposition to stations. Maybe this is Architect of the Capitol land? There are also stations by L'Enfant Plaza and Smithsonian Metros, but the Park Service ought to be funding stations at the Washington Monument and the Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR, WWII, and Marine Corps memorials at the very least.

What are your reactions?

Update: There is one at the east entrance to U Street Metro. Google Maps does a bit of a disservice with the placement of the Metro station symbols, which misled a few commenters about whether bikes will be next to stations.

Update 2: DDOT has apparently been reading your comments and is listening. Stations have appeared at Howard University and Farragut Square, two conspicuous omissions early on. You can see some of the changes by comparing the above map with BeyondDC's screen capture of the central DC area earlier this morning.

Update 3: DDOT said that the map isn't final and they're still making adjustments.

Update 4: The final map is up. The one embedded above now reflects the official locations.

In particular, there are no residents on this corner and very few anywhere nearby. According to DePillis, Carney (whose district I live in) argued that the hotel patrons across the street need quiet too, but Will Stephens, whose district encompasses the commercial area on 18th Street between S and U, suggested that the hotel patrons might also want a place to eat and drink late at night after a late flight or a long day of meetings.

In fact, one adjacent hotel told Wexler that they actually have soundproof windows because of the existing volume of emergency vehicles on both 16th and K. No hotel asked the ANC to oppose the liquor license application.

The Dupont Current's Katie Pearce wrote recently (enormous PDF) about a shift on the ABC Board under new Chairman Charles Brodsky. Previously, the Board would acecpt and enforce virtually any VA. Now, it seems to be taking a skeptical view of all VAs.

Perhaps some VAs were too restrictive in the past. In some cases, small groups of residents pushed for strict restrictions and restaurant owners felt blackmailed into accepting them. However, many other VAs are entirely appropriate, as the law's one-size-fits-all rules allowing establishments to stay open until 3 am on weekends may be right for some areas but not for others.

When an ANC takes a knee-jerk position against a liquor license with no adjacent residents and no opposition from the adjacent hotels, it potentially weakens the case for VAs more broadly. The Dupont ANC would have more credibility with the ABC Board if it pushed for reasonable restrictions but restrained itself in other cases.

Even the Dupont Circle Conservancy, the neighborhood's historic preservation organization, supported the cafe, which will take up some of the green space along 16th. Some have argued that this green space is "historic," though the official description of the 16th Street Historic District doesn't list the green space as a contributing element. (Disclosure: I am a member of the Conservancy but did not vote on the resolution concerning this property as I had missed the initial presentation by the applicant.)

The Conservancy split the difference to some extent, supporting the cafe as long as it left a substantial green buffer and emphasizing that it didn't want this to set a precedent for every other establishment adjacent to 16th to get a cafe. (Personally, I wouldn't mind if other cafes appeared as well.)

As I wrote in the past, the Conservancy has generally eschewed the "allow no change" view of preservation and instead diligently differentiated between what is estimably historic as opposed to just long-standing. Of course, there's always plenty of room for debate about where to draw that line.

The more neighborhood organizations try to truly balance the issues at hand instead of being absolutist for or against anything, the more effective they are. Just look at the ARTS Overlay committee of ANC 2F, which spent months researching the zoning issues along 14th and U Streets and produced an excellent report which has gained substantial acceptance from the Office of Planning and Zoning Commission.

That's a model other groups should emulate. Instead, Dupont's ANC took a small step backward for VAs everywhere and neighborhood group credibility with their fierce defense of nobody at all.