Posts about AFRH
History
Sherman Building at Soldiers' Home damaged in earthquake
The Armed Forces Retirement Home, known for many years as the Soldiers' Home, is tucked away on a beautiful campus near North Capitol Street in upper northwest Washington.
This past week's earthquake did substantial damage For 150 years, the AFRH has offered veterans a restful retreat amidst a cluster of striking historical buildings. Most well-known nowadays among Soldiers' Home buildings is the once-endangered Lincoln Cottage, a Gothic Revival country house built by banker George W. Riggs (1813-1881) in 1842 and used by President Abraham Lincoln as a summer retreat.
It has been named a national monument, restored, and made into a fascinating museum by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. But the attention given to the Lincoln Cottage seems to have pushed the rest of the Soldiers' Home buildings into undeserved obscurity.
To appreciate the Sherman Building, one has to start at the beginning of the story, with the founding of the Soldiers' Home. As Matthew Pinsker has explained, the institution was a long time coming. There had been talk in Congress as early as the 1820s of establishing a facility to care for disabled veterans who were unable to support themselves, but little came of it.
In the 1840s, Maj. Robert Anderson (1805-1871) The turning point came as a result of the invasion of Mexico City in 1847 by American forces led by Gen. Winfield Scott (1786-1866). True to historical form, the conquering army extracted a tribute ($150,000) from the good people of Mexico City to spare their fine city from being looted and destroyed.
Rather than turning the money over to the War Department, Scott then took the extraordinary step of putting $100,000 of it into a bank account to be reserved for establishing an Army asylum, "subject to the order of Congress." The War Department tried to get the money back but was blocked by Senator Jefferson Davis (1808-1889) of Mississippi The law establishing the military asylum designated two other locations, in Mississippi and Louisiana, but the one in Washington was the only one that lasted. Using the Mexican tribute money, Congress bought the 200-acre country estate of banker Riggs, including his Gothic Revival cottage, and later purchased additional properties, including the adjoining Harewood estate of Riggs' partner, William W. Corcoran (1798-1888), ultimately creating a 500-acre bucolic, wooded reservation. As originally established, the Soldiers' Home welcomed veterans of the regular army with 20 or more years of service as well as disabled veterans with any amount or type of service.
The first inmates of the military asylum lived in the old Riggs cottage beginning in 1852, but clearly more room was needed. The asylum's board authorized construction of a new main hall to accommodate up to 250 residents as well as two other large cottages, all to be clustered around the Riggs cottage near the northwest corner of the huge property. Lt. Barton S. Alexander (1819-1878), an experienced Army engineer who would later have a key role in the Civil War defenses of Washington, was chosen to oversee the construction.
The new main hall would later be named Scott Hall, after Gen. Winfield Scott, and it has remained the centerpiece of the Soldiers' Home until this day. Construction began in 1852 and continued for five years. For its design, Lt. Alexander imitated James Renwick's Smithsonian Institution building, now known as the Smithsonian Castle, a triumph of the "picturesque" mode of architecture promoted by Andrew Jackson Downing (1815-1852).
Picturesque buildings aimed to use eclectic designs based on historical architectural styles to blend in with their natural settings. The picturesque precedent fit the new Soldiers' Home building perfectly, situated as it was on top of an idyllic wooded hilltop with sublime views of the capital city. Its Romanesque-arched windows, wistfully reminiscent of a medieval abbey nestled in the remote countryside, gave dignity and architectural flair to what could have been a drab government dormitory.
While the Castle was made of red sandstone, Scott Hall used white New York marble. Its construction was overseen by Gilbert Cameron, a master builder and stonemason from New York whom Renwick had brought to Washington in 1847 to work on the Smithsonian project. As completed in 1857, the building was two stories tall with cast-iron balconies, a large clock tower rising up at its center, and a stately, arched front porch.
Once Scott Hall and the other two new cottages were complete, Soldiers' Home found itself When the Lincolns arrived, they wanted the Riggs house. One suspects that Mary Todd Lincoln was behind this decision. Abraham Lincoln enjoyed staying at the cottage and was said to have drafted the Emancipation Proclamation there. Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur summered there as well. James and Lucretia Garfield had been planning to spend the summer of 1881 at Soldiers Home, but they never got the chance; Garfield was felled by an assassin's bullet at the Baltimore & Potomac train station on the Mall in July 1881.
As originally built, Scott Hall quickly proved to be too small, and the building was remodeled in 1869 by adding a third floor under a fashionable, Second-Empire style mansard roof. The building was then remodeled again in 1887 after a large annex had been constructed behind it. The resulting structure, completed in 1890, is even more castle-like than before, with crenellated parapets and a truly monumental Richardson-Romanesque clock tower.
At 320 feet, Scott Hall boasts the third highest elevation in Washington, DC. The vast grounds of the Soldiers' Home surrounding it were kept open to the public after it was built, and a network of scenic roads was constructed that made the property a great destination for a Sunday outing, especially before the roads and amenities of Rock Creek Park were developed. As described in Joseph West Moore's Picturesque Washington (1887): Within the grounds there are seven miles of drives on broad, well-made roads, shaded in summer by gigantic oaks with luxuriant leafage; and there are lakes with swans, long stretches of meadow-lands, handsome arbors perched on hills, whence can be obtained delightful prospects of the country for several miles; ornate villas, statuary, and various adornments. It is, indeed, a pleasant spot, with plentiful means for peaceful enjoyment, and, doubtless, many a "weary pilgrim on life's devious course," as he strolls through these grounds almost envies the superannuated warriors their privilege of residing here. The complex used to include a large and productive dairy farm, worked, in part, by some of the residents. The dairy farm and other land located to the south of the property Renamed the Armed Forces Retirement Home in 2001, the now-venerable institution receives no taxpayer money to fund its operations, relying instead on a 50-cent weekly payroll deduction contributed by all active enlisted military personnel. To earn more income, the home developed a master plan, approved in 2008, that calls for development of some of its underutilized property. An early version of the plan was scaled back in response to concerns about density and historic preservation.
Last Tuesday's earthquake only added to the Home's financial challenges. According to Carrie Barton, an historic preservation specialist with EHT Traceries, Inc., a number of carved stone pieces from the Sherman Building's pinnacles and crenellated parapets fell off, either inward through ceilings or outward to the ground. Stone masons were marking and cataloging the pieces for eventual repair.
More seriously, the building's iconic tower was severely compromised. It sustained major cracks and was leaning toward one side. An emergency effort was undertaken on Saturday to stabilize it as Hurricane Irene approached, but engineers were uncertain whether it could be repaired or would need to be entirely rebuilt.
This coming week, engineers expect to develop a plan for how to proceed with the building's restoration. Additional photos of the earthquake damage can be found on the DC Preservation League's Facebook page.
Cross-posted at Streets of Washington.
A damaged pinnacle on the roof of the Sherman Building. Photo by Carrie Barton, EHT Traceries, Inc.
Early 1900s view of Scott Hall. Image from the Library of Congress.
Scott Hall as it originally appeared, from 1857 to 1869. Source: Harper's Weekly, Jan. 5, 1867, via the Library of Congress.
Stereoview photo of Scott Hall as it appeared from 1869 to 1887. Image from the author's collection).
Scott Hall after its final 1890 renovation. Image from the author's collection.A short distance from Washington, on the Rock Creek road, is the Soldiers' Home, a most beautiful sylvan retreat where the aged and invalid soldiers of the regular army can pass their days in peace and comfort. There are few finer rural estates in the land, and it is often called "the Central Park of Washington," as it is constantly open to the public, and over its five hundred acres of beautifully diversified hill and dale, every one can wander at will, enjoying the charming views and attractive surroundings.
Soldiers' Home has undergone many changes in the intervening years. Many buildings have been added; much land has been lost. When large new buildings, a dormitory and hospital, were completed in 1954, the Scott Hall name was transferred to the new dormitory, and the historic Scott Hall became the Sherman Building. Safety concerns then led to the closing of the grounds to the public in 1968.
A stone from the parapet crashed through the ceiling of this room in the Sherman Building. No one was injured. Photo by Carrie Barton, EHT Traceries, Inc.
Sherman Building parapet damage. Photo by Carrie Barton, EHT Traceries, Inc.
History
Then and Now: Homes near AFRH
Left: 592-600 Park Road, NW from the Washington Times, Aug. 23, 1908. Right: Today.
This row of homes on Park Road east of Georgia Avenue has certainly seen some changes over the years. They were designed in 1908 by architect N. T. Haller for builder Percy H. Russell. When they were completed Georgia Avenue was still named Brightwood Avenue, Park Morton (now behind and next to the row) wouldn't be built for another 53 years, and the Soldiers' Home (now the Armed Forces Retirement Home) was still open to the public.
In fact, the Soldiers' Home was considered a major selling feature of these homes. The real estate ad offering these homes to the public stated that one of their many advantages was "one of the most beautiful parks in the world
History
Then and Now: Eagle Gate, U.S. Soldiers' Home
Even though the Eagle Gate
Eagle Gate ca. 1920, from postcard in author's collection.
Eagle Gate today.
The most noticeable may be the absence of the iron archway and electric light that once illuminated the gate. More subtle, but still obvious is the moving of the piers which originally defined a narrower gate with side pedestrian gates. Though these elements are still present, they've been reconfigured to accommodate modern vehicles.
Another significant change, though not present in these photos, is the absence of the street car line that once served this location.
Eagle Gate, detail showing current placement of northern piers.
Public Spaces
North Capitol study recommends parkway and boulevard
The North Capitol Street study has released a set of recommendations, WashCycle notes.
North Capitol Street study area.
North Capitol Street has gradually evolved into more of a freeway over time, including a 19-acre cloverleaf interchange where it meets Irving Street, which the report calls "an anomaly" in DC. But the surrounding neighborhoods are growing, and the street abuts properties planned for development, including the McMillan Sand Filtration Site and the edge of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Right now, the freeway character makes the street "a barrier" to any users except for automobiles traveling between the neighborhoods. To the south, the report writes, "where North Capitol joins the more typical urban fabric of the city, the street should fill the role of a symbolic entry to the Capital, but largely fails because of the poor streetscape conditions and unwelcoming pedestrian environment: gaps in the sidewalk network, little or no street furnishings, sparse and inconsistent street trees, chain-link fence, and overscaled, highway-style "cobrahead" light fixtures that leave sidewalks dimly lit."
The study recommends a "parkway" character for the segment north of Irving Street, similar to Rock Creek Parkway with a wide hiker-biker trail along side (hopefully wider and less windy than Rock Creek's), and an "urban boulevard" to the south, with a median, better sidewalks and lighting, and furniture and street trees similar to DC's other axial boulevards.
Renderings of North Capitol Street north of Irving Street now (left) and proposed (right).
Renderings of North Capitol Street south of Irving Street now (left) and proposed (right).
For the cloverleaf itself, the study doesn't choose between the three options, the parkway/memorial, the circle, and the "four corners." I recommended the circle, which has the most development potential ($188 million) but also the least parkland (2.7 acres). The cheaper "four corners" option, with 10 acres of parkland, splits it into four pieces with a major road cutting through, and the parkway/memorial option is both the most expensive and the least likely to develop a usable sense of place.
The study team also looked at the possibility of realigning North Capitol to follow the straight axis from the Capitol. A realigned North Capitol could become a main street for the new AFRH development instead of having it turn its back on the street. However, they determined that it's infeasible because of historic buildings a cemetery, and part of AFRH's grounds in the way, and the fact that the AFRH planning has already progressed very far. An at-grade intersection at Irving and North Capitol was also rejected because of traffic volumes.
Public Spaces
Build a circle at North Capitol and Irving
DC and federal officials and a team of consultants have created three options for redesigning the cloverleaf interchange at the intersection of North Capitol and Irving Streets. Dubbed the "Memorial in the Park," "Center of Centers," and "Four Corners," each continues the grade separation of east-west and north-south traffic while also trying to create a more hospitable area for people.
North Capitol Cloverleaf overlaid onto Dupont Circle for scale comparison.
The interchange is DC's only traditional freeway cloverleaf interchange, occupying about 19 acres in what is becoming a more urban, more walkable part of the city. The adjacent Armed Forces Retirement Home plans to develop its southeastern corner, adjacent to the cloverleaf, into mixed-use buildings to fund its ongoing operations. Catholic University is growing, and the nearby McMillan Sand Filtration site will become a new neighborhood of its own as well.
The interchange is part of a short freeway piece of North Capitol between more urban segments to the north and south. It encourages high-speed traffic and discourages pedestrians and bicyclists. It generates a large "dead zone" in the surrounding bus network. And it creates inaccessible empty space instead of more valuable parkland that people can actually use.
The study team developed three alternatives. One would reroute the roads to the southeast, creating a park space for a large memorial and giving the roads a "parkway" design. The park would be 7.5 acres, about the same size as Capitol Hill's Lincoln Park. It's also the most expensive of the four, likely costing $40-45 million.
The second option would build a circle with 2.6 acres of green space in the center, a little more than Dupont Circle's 2.3. Like Dupont, one roadway (Irving) would pass underneath, while the other (North Capitol) would use the circle along with turning movements. This would probably cost $37-41 million.
The third would divide the green space into four corner parks, with the larger two about the same size as the Navy Memorial at one acre. A ring road would let vehicles transfer between the two roads. This option is the cheapest, at an estimated $28-31 million. It'd also be possible to also leave out the ring of buildings, creating more empty space instead of stores and residences.
Left to right, top to bottom: The current North Capitol interchange; the "parkway/memorial" option; the "circle" option; the "four corners" option.
According to the study team, replacing the interchange with a simple at-grade intersection would require each roadway to have ten lanes, and even then cars would take longer to move through the intersection, not to mention the very long pedestrian crossing times.
DC should choose the circle design. It builds on the existing L'Enfant public space vocabulary of Washington. The well-designed circles mix public parks and vehicular movements in a generally pleasing balance. However, the circle actually be circular. An oval shape might help the cars move through the area a bit more quickly, but at the cost of some parkland. Also, encouraging cars to slow down through the area would improve this public space. A circle works fine for DC's existing circles, and would preserve the continuity across the city.
I'm also curious if the study team evaluated having both roadways pass underneath the circle, meeting at a traffic light underground while turning cars still use the circle. I've always wondered if that would improve Dupont Circle. It would slow traffic passing through somewhat, but since cars wouldn't have to wait for left turning movements, would delay drivers far less than a regular at-grade intersection.
The "memorial" design looks too much like the Kennedy Center's "ramp spaghetti" and other contemporaneous designs that aren't really pedestrian-friendly. That design creates a park that would serve the AFRH development well, but cuts the park off from the other sides. One day, the VA Medical Center or the houses to the southeast could become more walkable in design, and the interchange should not hinder that possibility. Likewise, residents of the future McMillan site development should be able to walk to this plaza without passing over and under ramps clearly designed for vehicles above all.
The "four corners" is okay, but the park is either too small or too large. If built, the ring of buildings cuts off the parks from the roadway, decreasing "eyes on the street" and making the park into more of a courtyard for the buildings. Without the buildings, it's just a larger version of the circle with an uncrossable road cutting it in two. There are no crosswalks on North Capitol in the middle, meaning people will have to walk all the way to one end to cross, or dash dangerously across midblock.
The study also briefly considers Irving and North Capitol outside the cloverleaf. It recommends redesigning North Capitol into a greenway with a median and hiker-biker sidepath north of the cloverleaf, and into an urban boulevard with wide sidewalks and off-peak parking south of the cloverleaf. Other recommendations include reducing travel lanes on Irving to add a bicycle lane, and removing the "slip lanes" to make the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Irving Street a more pedestrian-friendly, 90-degree standard intersection. To help drivers, it recommends widening Michigan Avenue slightly at 1st Street, NW to lengthen the turn lanes and add protected left turn phases to the traffic lights.
All of the designs show potential locations for stops on a future Irving Street transit line. For now, that could mean a rerouted H bus or a future Circulator, but in the future this corridor should get light rail or a streetcar running from Woodley Park to Brookland. Metro is also considering giving it the "Priority Bus Corridor" treatment like 16th Street or Georgia Avenue; the 80 bus on North Capitol is already on the priority corridor list, though at the very bottom.
Public Spaces
Dinner links: development delays and bodily wastes
Photo by mrobenalt on Flickr.
Shady development seeing the light: The Mongtomery County Planning Board will hold a hearing on the Shady Grove Life Sciences Center on March 26th. (Gazette)
Isn't it fertilizer? Some residents of McLean Gardens and the surrounding area aren't sure a dog park can coexist with their community garden on Newark Street. (WTOP)
Radio? Is that like YouTube without pictures? Kojo Nnamdi discussed social networking today in light of the Maryland legislature's recent ban.
When boarding, please don't pee: Friends of friends of Transportation Examiner Katherine Hill pee on the Metro platforms. Really. Yuck.
Bricks or bricks? DDOT wants to know what you prefer for bricks around Eastern Market: "Holland Pavers" or cobblestone-esque bricks. (DCist)
Dead tree? Oh well: There's nobody to prune dying or dead trees, DC officials tell Life in Mount Vernon Square.
On the calendar: Tonight, DDOT is simultaneously presenting plans for 17th and 18th Street in Dupont and the 11th Street Bridges. In Alexandria, the Potomac Yards advisory group is discussing a potential Metro station. Tomorrow, DDOT will present plans to reopen Champlain Street under the Marie Reed Center in Adams Morgan.
Plus ça change: Last year, people in Ward 3 were debating free visitor parking passes; Council Chairman Vincent Gray was talking about parking on Poplar Point, and we looked at two options for South Capitol Street, of which DDOT ultimately picked the better one.
Public Spaces
North Capitol study plans "gateway", disappoints neighbors
The "North Capitol Street Urban Design & Transportation Study," sponsored by the Office of Planning, DDOT and NCPC, aims to to transform the freeway-like North Capitol street into an attractive gateway to DC from the north. At a public meeting last night, though, neighbors mostly heaped criticism OP for the narrow scope of the study and for their other frustrations with DC's land use and transportation decisionmaking.
The study focuses on the stretch of North Capitol Street between Hawaii Ave and Michigan Ave, where it passes by the Washington Hospital Center, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and Catholic University. This stretch is currently a limited access freeway, with a prominent cloverleaf at the interchange between North Capitol and Irving Street. It's designed to funnel people downtown, but severely limits east-west connectivity. There are also no pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities going north-south through this stretch. The freeway configuration is inhospitable to pedestrians and encourages unsafe driving. Traffic ought to move at city speeds rather than freeway speeds.
Further, the nearby institutions (AFRH, WHA and CUA) generally focus inwards. Even the condominium and apartment communities off Michigan Ave have a very suburban design removed from the street grid.
A wasteful use of land in the middle of DC. View larger map.
The study team from EEK Architects acknowledged these issues hopes to turn North Capitol into a symbolic entryway into the downtown core from the north. They talked about creating civic spaces, establishing a unique identity, exploring alternatives to the cloverleaf, and creating a more urban, pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive North Capitol Street. They are looking to East Capitol Street and Rock Creek Parkway for examples. Both move a lot of traffic but also create character for the area. This is only the beginning a 12-week study, so the presentation was sparse on specific details.
After the presentation, the discussion quickly devolved into complaints, and outright anger in some cases. Many neighbors had high hopes, based on the meeting announcement, that the study was going to look at the area as a whole, including the Brookland/CUA and Georgia Ave/Petworth Metro stations, potential for cross-town light rail service, bicycle lanes, and more. After badgering the officials, attendees realized that the study focuses very narrowly on the cloverleaf and won't address many of these larger issues.
Area residents also expressed clear frustration at the lack of communication between the OP and elected ANCs. Brooklanders, in particular, complained about communication. Much of this stems from their ongoing struggle with government agencies to bury the power lines along 12th Street. There are also 6 million square feet of proposed development in the area, currently in various stages of the planning process. This includes including CUA South Campus, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, the McMillan Plant, and Washington Hospital Center, among others.
With traffic already heavy around North Capitol, residents wanted to see a more comprehensive approach to these current problems. Otherwise, they're sure to get worse as these developments break ground.
Transit
How about a North Capitol Red Line branch?
Large mixed-use development projects at the McMillan Sand Filtration site and Armed Forces Retirement Home will add density and thousands of residential units to an area far from Metro. Current Bloomingdale residents are concerned about increased traffic, as the area is already a bottleneck, pinched between parks, universities and cemeteries that have severed the street grids. Upstart anti-McMillan development blog No Drilling at McMillan cites an old WMATA study stating that the Washington Hospital Center is the "most dense commuter destination not served by transit rail." Can we we add some transit serving this area?
McMillan development proposal.
Richard Layman suggests that DC should require these developers to pay into a fund for future transit enhancement, as Arlington County often does. Streetcars or priority bus corridors along the congested North Capitol Street are distinct and viable possibilities.
But maybe it's worth thinking bigger: how about heavy rail using the Red Line? The Northeast leg of the Red Line followed the railroad right of way rather than a path to maximize TOD, such as Georgia Avenue. Many residents of Brookland and Takoma strongly oppose development, and neither is among the top stations in ridership. What about a separate branch of the Red Line?
Alternating eastbound Red Line trains could split off after the New York Avenue station and service new stations before ultimately linking back up at Silver Spring. This would increase the coverage of Metro to DC residents and add TOD opportunities with minimal impact to travel times for suburban commuters headed downtown and to NoMa. In the long run, this segment could get its own service entirely as part of a possible Brown Line.
Top priorities for the North Capitol route include serving the new developments and the hospital, the commercial nodes of existing communities, preserving the Fort Totten Green Line transfer, and accessing areas with more opportunity for infill stations in the future. Along the existing Red Line track I also added a Kansas Avenue infill station, located in an area of light industrial that could be prime for TOD redevelopment.
Stations along this route could include:
- Bloomingdale: Rhode Island Ave at First Street NW
- McMillan: Michigan Ave at First Street NW
- AFRH: Irving Street NW at North Capitol Street
- Fort Totten: On parallel platform
- Brightwood: Missouri Ave at Georgia Ave NW
Future infill stations could go at commerical nodes like Kennedy Street at 3rd Street NW, Georgia Ave at Piney Branch NW, and Georgia Ave at Kalmia Road NW.
What's the best way to serve the cluster of McMillian, AFRH, and Washington Hospital Center? With the Hospital at the physical midpoint, one station to serve these three areas would be the least costly. However, the groups making the most trips would probably be, first, residents of the new communities, then hospital workers, retail customers of the new developments, and finally patients. Residents and retail customers would be more sensitive to long walks or shuttle buses, while workers are more likely to view a shuttle that connected the two nearby metro stations and circulated the hospital campus as an amenity.
This concept is admittedly off the cuff. I haven't vetted it rigorously by evaluating bus ridership and capital costs. Streetcars may be more cost-effective. However, while I do support streetcars across the city, I would also like to see us continue to expand heavy rail. This concept could extend the reach of heavy rail with minimal disruption to core capacity. I thought it was worth serving up in raw form for discussion. I welcome feedback and will work it into further refinement of this concept.
Public Spaces
A busy day for NCPC
This morning, the National Capital Planning Commission (the federal government's planning body for the DC area) released a great proposal for the future of the Federal area of the city. It calls for decking over not only the E Street Expressway but almost all of the "ramp spaghetti", creating space for new buildings east and northeast or the Kennedy Center and a park to the southeast connecting to the Lincoln Memorial.
The study area for the National Capital Framework Plan. Image from NCPC.
In the Federal Triangle area, the report also suggests a "Federal walk" guiding tourists to notable works of art among the federal office buildings, a more usable public space at the currently-barren, raised Freedom Plaza around 13th and Pennsylvania, and redevelopment of the FBI building to include street-level retail and restaurants, matching the livelier streets around it.
It also repeats and extends some past NCPC ideas for Southwest, including decking over part of the Southwest Freeway near the Banneker Overlook and creating a new 10th Street Overlook nearby, burying the VRE tracks to restore Maryland Avenue, a canal across East Potomac Park, and redeveloping some of the less historic concrete buildings, especially the Forrestal Building which blocks a view from the Smithsonian Castle down to the Potomac River.
Here's the complete report. I'll analyze its recommendations in more detail next week. Meanwhile, you can read today's Post article.
NCPC also discussed the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which proposes to develop some parcels on the edge of its property to raise an endowment allowing it to provide for its retired veterans in the future. The plan is substantially the same as the one I reviewed previously, with a few small improvements.
They have reduced the number of parking spaces at DDOT's request from the enormously high 6,500 to a slightly less enormous but still very high 5,155. If DC or WMATA improves bus service to the site, the number of spaces will decrease further. In the meantime, the plan calls for a shuttle bus to Columbia Heights and Brookland/CUA Metro stations, but those shuttles will only run 30 minutes outside rush hour, making them unlikely to seriously reduce car ownership or usage by residents or employees.
The plan also shifted some retail to Irving Street, on the exterior of the development, from the interior. The Office of Planning (and I) had criticized the way the plan "turns its back" to Irving Street; this change ameliorates that, though there will still be blank walls from parking garages on several of the blocks, albeit attractively concealed garages.
The biggest controversy at the NCPC meeting concerned open space. A small parcel on the west side, Zone C, was designated for possible future development of low-density (and suburban-esquely arranged) townhouses, but AFRH had always emphasized its desire to always leave this parcel forested. It abuts Petworth, and many residents and officials had advocated for creating a public park in Zone C and possibly Zone B, perhaps with some money from the National Park Service or the District of Columbia, perhaps partly as a condition for approval of the other zones.
The staff recommended NCPC approve the other zones with the condition that AFRH agree to negotiate for the next two years. AFRH argued against this idea because they don't want to decide what to do with C in the next two years; they use it currently, and hadn't planned to touch C for at least fifteen years. They want to keep it for the private use of their residents at least that long, ideally indefinitely as long as their finances remain sound.
Several board members objected to any conditions that would further delay financing which would help this needy institution. Ultimately, NCPC approved only Zone A, leaving Zones B and C as part of AFRH, requiring future debate and NCPC action before they can become buildings, a public park, or anything else.
After further discussing the proposed MLK Jr. National Memorial on the Tidal Basin and Georgetown Waterfront Park, NCPC dove into minutiae with a debate about 20 feet of height. Basically, the Height Act allows buildings on commercial streets to be 20 feet higher than the width of a nearby street, up to a maximum of 130 feet; a mixed-use building on M Street at Capper-Carrollsburg in Southeast fronts a 250-foot wide right-of-way bisected by a parking lot that will become Canal Park.
The street on the west is 2nd Street, 90 feet wide; on the east is 2nd Place, 70 feet wide. Once, 2nd Place was also called 2nd Street. Should we consider this a 250-foot wide single street with green space in its center, like E Street in Foggy Bottom, or two separate streets separated by a park? One would allow a 130-foot-high building, another only 110 feet.
The zoning administrator has ruled the former; the NCPC staff takes the opposite view. Harriet Tregoning made a good case for why nitpicking 20 feet is beneath NCPC and not especially vital to the federal interest, but by a narrow 5 to 4 vote, NCPC voted to oppose the extra 20 feet.
Development
Pop the top or pack 'em in the back?
Few people argue with building in undeveloped areas like Near Southeast, with empty lots and where the few existing residents want more neighbors. But there are few of these sites. Most undeveloped land is in or next to an existing neighborhood. Where do we put housing?
Is it better to build new tall buildings near low-density neighborhoods, as has been proposed for the Armed Forces Retirement Home? Should two-story row houses grow to three, as often happens in non-historically designated neighborhoods like Bloomingdale or Petworth where the zoning allows it? Or should we fit more people in between the current housing, in alley dwellings?
In the recent discussion about inclusionary zoning, several people brought up alley dwellings. DC has a rich history of people living in alleys, but current zoning and codes don't allow them. Should we bring them back? Some people in the Low and Moderate Density zoning working group brought it up as a possible alternative to pop-ups. Some have suggested giving more local control, at the neighborhood or even block level, over certain zoning decisions. Should we let each block pick Alley dwellings have drawbacks, too. Right now, we use alleys for parking and loading. But when people live in the alleys, they can create pressure to build garages and loading areas right on the street to avoid impacting the alleys, like on the 14th and U project. Access for fire trucks can be a problem. What other issues do alley dwellings bring up? Would you prefer them to taller buildings in your neighborhood?
@ggwash
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
Greater Washington
District of Columbia
