Posts about American University

But in 1977, it was the threat of Westover Place that was vexing locals. According to a September 25th, 1977 Washington Post article:

And to the north of this, adjacent to the 5-acre university parking lot, Kettler Brothers Inc., the giant development company that built Montgomery Village, has already cleared more than eight acres where 149 town houses will be constructed. Houses in this development, Westover Place, will sell from about $135,000.

In the article, entitled "Bulldozers at the Estates," Phil McCombs reports on arguments and characters not unlike the current fights over American University's expansion and other developments in the area. Just as before, opponents are appealing to a right of first arrival, but the article lays bare the hypocrisy in living in a development while fighting a development because it will have the same effects your house did. The rowhouses of Westover Place and similar developments paved over Northwest's last open spaces that seemed so essential to the "rural" character of piedmont Washington.

Similar to the opposition to the 1960 Tenley Library and the 1941 Sears Roebuck, an enormous to-do was made over the development and yet both became established elements of the community. At that time, however, the changes seemed signified the end of something unique. McCombs quotes the ANC3 Commissioner Polly Shackelton bemoaning the change:

"Here you have these fine established residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted with increased density and traffic and all kinds of things that really could be very damaging," she said. "I think in a way it's too bad we don't have a comprehensive plan."

She said that development of the Rockefeller estate, for example, "will be devastating because Foxhall Road is already crowded. With 100 new houses there, I don't know how we'll deal with it."

The problematic idea here is "establishment": that because a neighborhood has reached any level of development at all, it should be maintained as it is. Are the current residents who now enjoy this property more justified than their neighbors who lived there in 1977, or estate owners who lived there in 1917?

No, these developments were part of the gradual urbanization of rural estates with density that is more appropriate to a close-in area. In 1977, it was the end of estates, and now it is a shift away from suburban design. Planning should manage change, but we cannot presume to think that any section of a city is in its final state. This flux, and its resistance are the same as today as they were a generation ago.

The objections seem as new (and as stale) as ones thrown up on the Tenleytown listerv yesterday. Just as opponents of Douglas Development's proposal for the former Babe's Billiards site have argued, in 1977 "Area residents said they are concerned that students from the nearby university will team up in the apartment buildings—creating what one person called 'rabbit warrens.' There is also concern that parking space will be insufficient, or that residents of new developments will park in the streets rather than pay to park in areas provided by the developers."

But the city and its infrastructure have been able to adapt to the new houses and the new apartments. The Metro arrived at Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. Both of those neighborhoods have survived significant growth, and quality of life and environment has improved. Friendship Heights, in particular, remains extremely popular as a place to raise a family, even has it has grown more popular as a retail destination and apartment community.

Long-term residents recall the fight of the development of the Glover estate as quite heated, yet the predicted cataclysms never came to pass. Residents of newer developments have integrated into the community, enough to fight changes, at least. Why should we expect any of the dire predictions about AU's expansion to come to fruition?

Cross-posted at цarьchitect. A version of this post appeared in the November 15th, 2011 issue of the Northwest Current.

In addition to sharing the two circumnavigating lanes with Massachusetts Avenue, Nebraska Avenue has two express lanes that travel through the middle of the circle. Even if pedestrians did want to travel into the middle of Ward Circle, they would have to cross both the outer travel lanes and the inner express lanes.

DDOT studied the option of closing the Nebraska Avenue through-lanes in the Rock Creek West II Livability Study. Doing so would slow automobile traffic but could help make for a better public place.

One alternative to improve traffic flow, through an expensive and logistically difficult proposition, would be to tunnel Nebraska Avenue under Ward Circle. Several other avenues tunnel under other circles in the District: Connecticut Avenue under Dupont Circle, Massachusetts under Thomas Circle, and 16th Street under Scott Circle.

Even without a tunnel, eliminating the express lanes and routing all traffic around the circle would improve the space. Crosswalks with leading pedestrian intervals would make it easier to cross only two lanes of traffic. Otherwise, DDOT will have to install crosswalks for both the outer and inner lanes.

Benches would also make the circle a more attractive place to spend time. Trees or larger shrubs along the edge could screen some of the traffic noise and provide shade. Lighting would make the circle a safe and attractive place to be at night.

DDOT redesigned Thomas Circle in a similar way in 2006. DDOT removed the middle lanes through the circle and restored the circular shape. Thomas Circle still needs additional amenities in the center to make it a more welcoming space, however, and similar improvements to Ward Circle would create a better community park.

Nebraska Avenue is also an unfriendly bike corridor along an important commuter route. Nebraska connects AU and DHS to Tenleytown, the closest Metro station. AU runs a shuttle to the Metro and DHS runs some shuttles, but biking along Nebraska can be treacherous with the traffic.

DDOT is considering widening the sidewalk on the north side of Nebraska and installing a bike path. According to Jim Sebastian, Nebraska Avenue is too narrow at 40 feet to install bike lanes on the street. The north side of Nebraska has heavier pedestrian traffic than the south side, so DDOT is only looking to expand there.

Increasing bicycle accessibility and mobility between Tenleytown and the circle should also be a goal of the redesign. A bike path along the sidewalk could encourage more bike commuting from Tenleytown to Ward Circle. DDOT should also add a second Capital Bikeshare station at the circle and expand the station at Tenleytown.

Currently, there is only one bike share station on Massachusetts Avenue to the northwest of Ward Circle. A station directly at the circle would not only accommodate more bikers, but it would also make it more of a destination. DDOT is now crowdsourcing suggestions for new stations, so residents, students, and nearby employees can suggest adding one here.

Finally, the bike lane network near AU is incomplete. Massachusetts Avenue has no lanes, and ANC3D opposed adding bike lanes to New Mexico Avenue near Nebraska. It's good that DDOT wants to add a bike path to Nebraska, but the agency should also push for a more connected and complete bike lane network around Ward Circle.

Ward Circle is close to students, residents, and federal workers, all of whom could benefit from a large green space, and the District should include in its planning modifications that activate the space. The proposed changes will create a better community space that is welcoming to pedestrians and cyclists, while still allowing for automobile flow. What else do you think would improve the circle?

Redistricting in ANC 3D, which covers neighborhoods from the Potomac River to Massachusetts Avenue, has been the subject of fierce debate over the past weeks. ANC 3D chair 3D02 commissioner Tom Smith and Ward 3 Redistricting Task Force Chair Jeffrey Kraskin were the principal architects of this proposal, dubbed Proposal #3. Meanwhile, 3D01 and 3D03 Commissioners Kent Slowinski and Nan Wells created two opposing proposals, Alternatives C and D.

Proposal #3, in its current state, would dramatically alter the current boundaries and violate many provisions in the DC redistricting codes and procedures. By further limiting student voice and participation in local DC politics, this plan continues the ongoing trend of illegally marginalizing and minimizing the representation and presence of college students across the District, especially at Georgetown University and American University.

This proposal lumps the American University campus population into essentially one 2,151 person district, the largest of the 9 SMDs in ANC 3D.

In doing so, students are completely removed from 3D02 (coincidentally represented by Commissioner Tom Smith), whose seat was closely contested by students in 2010. Intentionally redrawing almost the entire AU student body into one district limits student voting power and therefore collective influence to one of nine seats.

It is also specifically drawn to include projected increases in student housing, which means by the fall of 2014, ANC 3D07 would, by the current census and upon adoption of the currently proposed Campus Plan, hold, at minimum, 2,954 students. While we grant that these projected numbers are not based on Census 2010 data, this situation is important to note.

Alternatives C and D also maintain sensible neighborhood boundaries, and avoid the creatively disjointed districts delineated by their counterpart. Unlike Proposal #3, which cuts across major roads, buildings, and within communities to create politically constructed voting blocks, this proposal fairly distributes representation across appropriate areas without violating provisions that prohibit dilution of student and homeowner votes.

Several ANC members and their constituents have supported the Slowinski/Wells plans, and believe the plans are in the best interests of all residents. Alternative C adds a 10th SMD and incorporates some land currently part of ANC 3E, which has been the subject of contention. That being said, Alternative C stands not only as a sensible and pragmatic solution for 3D, but it also allows 3E redistricting numbers to be in compliance.

If the theoretical new district covering the Department of Homeland Security and a number of apartment buildings are not brought into 3D, the 3E maps will have to be re-configured. It further enhances the commonality of the neighborhood along MacArthur Blvd, greater Wesley Heights, and the Spring Valley/AU area.

Regardless, many have noted that the process over the past weeks has been less than transparent, open, and democratic. As the Smith/Kraskin plan (Proposal #3) has drawn opposition from the Slowinski/Wells proposals, many have alleged that the process is rife with conflicts of interest and political motivations. Ward 3D chair Tom Smith refused to allow the consideration of the process and of the various proposals at public ANC meetings. Circulation and discussion of proposed maps was very limited.

The first subgroup redistricting 3D group vote on Sunday night passed Proposal #3 over Alternative D by a 4-3 margin. The second vote was on Stu Ross' motion to accept the Smith/Kraskin #3 map with an amendment, with a potential for "tweaks." In a measure of protest, Commissioner Slowinski abstained from the vote, the final tally being 4-2-1. The last vote was 5-0 to object to a 10-member ANC, with Bill Slover (Palisades) and Kent Slowinski abstaining.

It is also important to note that only members of the Redistricting Task force are able to vote officially on any of the proposed plans. DC Council appointed members of the Task Force, and representatives such as Commissioner Wells and Jones, were unable to vote on these proposals. No AU students are members of the task force.

We see further problems with the current proposal as it stands. American University has a design capacity for just over 3500 students and is projecting to house approximately 4300 students by fall 2014. However, under Under §1-1332 of the DC Code:

(e) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall result in district populations with a deviation range greater than 10% or a relative deviation greater than plus-or-minus 5%, unless the deviation results from the limitations of census geography or from the promotion of a rational public policy, including, but not limited to, respect for the political geography of the District, the natural geography of the District, neighborhood cohesiveness, or the development of compact and contiguous districts.

Current Census numbers show that the Proposal #3 population total falls outside the 1900-2100 limits set by the Task Force committee. Alternatives C and D are in compliance.

While the numbers in the Smith/Kraskin plan already exceed the given population boundaries, projected growth under the new campus plan would clearly continue to violate this provision. While other Wards have constructed their SMD's to anticipate projected growth in the area, the new lines under Proposal #3 clearly ignore projected changed for the purpose of consolidating AU voting influence into merely one seat. Such an action further disenfranchises the student vote, as section §1-1332 of the DC Code stipulates that:

(f) No redistricting plan or proposed amendment to a redistricting plan shall be considered if the plan or amendment has the purpose and effect of diluting the voting strength of minority citizens.

The definition of "minority citizens" is not specifically defined, yet it is fair to say that students constitute a minority in DC, and that the proposed plan deliberately attempts to confine their influence to one vote. It ensures that any student vote in the current 3D02 district will be removed, meaning that Commissioner Smith will be able to continue opposing students on many issues without fear of being voted out of office.

While it is mathematically impossible to cram the entire AU population into one district, Proposal #3 attempts to do so by consolidating every dorm on campus (except for Letts Hall) into one ANC seat.

The map at right shows what is referred to on campus as "Letts-Anderson Quad". Letts, Anderson, and Centennial Halls, while all classified as separate dormitories, are actually one large connected complex (total estimated population: 1802 students).

There are no legal roads cutting through LA Quad and once a person enters the residential complex, he or she can go to any part of the three dorms without ever going outdoors. This arbitrary division disregards the mandate of redistricting task forces to maintain neighborhood continuity.

The disruption of neighborhood continuity does not end with the dissection and reforming of AU's campus. 3D01, 02, 03, and 07 (all the districts comprising or bordering AU) will face significant changes. If Commissioner Smith's plan passes, the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights neighborhoods will be fundamentally divided in a way that disregards natural boundaries and accepted community lines.

Proposal #3 has another major downside: it inevitably will negatively change the landscape of relationships between the AU administration, AU students, and neighboring community members. The existence of a SMD that is equally divided among students and neighboring residents increases the feasibility that students and neighbors can fairly work together.

By limiting student voting influence on the ANC to one seat, this proposal eliminates accountability on the part of other ANC members to student needs and concerns. It is important to remember that students and homeowners are more than capable of working together both inside and outside of the democratic process, should the political shenanigans be put aside.

Districts that include both students and neighbors are integral to maintaining and establishing cohesion between these citizen groups because any ANC commissioner elected in such a district should reasonably consider the needs of all constituents, allowing for a more moderate voice. This article need not be interpreted as another attempt to portray this discussion as a two-sided debate.

We understand the difficulty of this process and the opposing viewpoints in play, yet we stress the need for an equitable solution that fairly considers all residents and allows for the best solution. As students, we value and appreciate the surrounding area as a welcoming and respected community, and we encourage further collaboration and partnership among all.

Proposal #3 clearly gerrymanders and marginalizes a significant and vulnerable group in ANC 3D. The best solution is to adhere as closely as possible to the current boundaries of the ANCs in 3D. Therefore, we endorse Alternatives C and D authored by Commissioners Slowinski and Wells. This reasonable alternative begins with the only generally accepted standard, the existing boundaries from 2001-2011, and makes minor and reasonable adjustments to most fairly represent every citizen of ANC 3D.

A public hearing of the Ward 3 redistricting task force will take place tonight at 7 pm, at the Horace Mann Elementary School.

To understand what I mean by interpretation, take a look at Machado & Silvetti's renovation of the Getty Villa. They combined the pragmatic need for an an entry stairway with architectural promenade that helps visitors understand the museum's curatorial approach.

Treating the 1970s replica of a roman villa as an object in a collection, stairs and pathways frame the building in a sequence that calls to mind an excavation. The stair gives visitors a lens with which to understand the building and clears their minds of the drive out to Malibu.

At Tenleytown, the preservation aspect should have the same approach. Rather than preserving the front of the campus as slice of DC's rural history, any new buildings should frame the old buildings in a way that heightens one's awareness of the area's history, which dates back to the tobacco plantations and and dirt farmers who worked the land before the streetcar suburbs.

By at least 1820, Dunblane House stood on the site, connected to what was then called Georgetown Pike by a long perpendicular driveway. In 1902, when the Sisters of Providence purchased the property for a women's college (Immaculata), they constructed Capital Hall and a chapel over that driveway.

Then, when the city was carving out Nebraska Avenue in the early 20th century, they designed it to intersect Wisconsin Avenue at the same spot where the Dunblane axis ends. Now, from the Dunblane site to Tenley Circle, we have a series of related buildings with a lot of history. But those buildings feel disconnected from the neighborhood.

A good redesign of the campus would link the neighborhood to the campus without diminishing the historic structures.In most projects, architects contrast new work through a difference of style. Here, the architects have an unequaled opportunity to explore the difference through urban design strategies.

Capital Hall is oriented towards Wisconsin Avenue, but it's hard to see the connection to Wisconsin Avenue for two reasons. The first is the lawn in front of the building, which distances Capital hall from its focus. The second is that none of the adjacent buildings are on the same axis. The residences on Nebraska are face that thoroughfare, while St. Anne's Church and the old convent on Yuma Street are aligned north-south on the city's grid.

I propose that the most effective way to contextualize the historic buildings is to heighten the sensation of contrast between the four axes at Tenley Circle by framing part of the frontal lawn with buildings. One would be aligned to Nebraska Avenue and the other to Yuma Street, with a staircase and plaza preserving line-of-sight between Capital Hall and the circle.

The plaza would serve as the badly needed front entrance, while focusing the view from Capital Hall to Tenley Circle. Wings that face Nebraska Ave. and Yuma St. would relate the campus to the city streets. The difference in orientation would allow for a poetic negotiation from the historic architecture to the contemporary, and from the work world to the academic one.

At the opposite end of the axis, AU should not have to keep the physical structure of Dunblane House, which does not have any merit for legal protection. However, AU should reinterpret the outlines, either another building or a garden feature, to anchor the axis and suggest an imprint of history.

AU's current plan misses a unique opportunity to interpret history through public space. The HPO's insistence that nothing can occlude Capital Hall will render that history as inaccessible the building itself. A different approach is necessary, one that lets us understand the past in relation to our needs and ideas. I believe that I have only scratched the surface of the tremendous architectural potential at the Tenley Campus.

It makes sense to move the law school to the Tenley campus. Most law school faculty and students live off campus and commute to the school from homes and jobs elsewhere in the city, making the site's accessibility a strong feature. In addition to the Metro, bus lines in eight directions link the circle to points all over Northwest DC. This level of accessibility will make it easy for students to attend classes without ever parking a car on local streets.

The law school should also benefit the community. The Tenley campus is near two functional but underdeveloped commercial strips on Wisconsin Avenue that have been struggling for years. An expanded campus would energize the South Tenley and Tenleytown strips by creating a bridge of activity between them where there is now just a narrow sidewalk and an empty field.

But as of July, the designs do not meet of the location's potential. AU asked the architects, SmithGroup, to mass the building in the footprints of the 1950s campus. Those objects relate to each other, but to the city or the local streets.

The worst consequence of this decision is the retention of the marginal green space between the main building and Tenley Circle. Instead of a place for people, the most visible and accessible part of the site becomes a large no-man's-land. At precisely the spot where the campus should best engage the city, it turns its back.

Around the sides, the site plan leaves even more empty shrub-filled spaces. AU has assured worried neighbors that these large setbacks will screen the bulk of new buildings, but they are a half-measure. As at East Campus, AU is trying to screen the buildings as a substitute for designing more attractive or exciting buildings. Here, the choice makes all of the perimeter conditions the same, front and back, and all relatively unproductive.

Moving the buildings to the front would let the designers consolidate the green space into useful parks at the rear of the site, rather than left as unused spaces on the fringe. It is completely contextual to have a larger building with strong streetwalls fronting the main street, with smaller structures set back on the side streets. This is how nearby blocks have developed, and how most blocks on Wisconsin are zoned.

SmithGroup's challenge at this site has been to lay out a plan that creates a campus environment internally, and that meets the neighborhood on one side and greets the city on the other. Their plan achieves a campus feel and blends into the neighborhood relatively well, but does not greet the city.

The campus needs an urban front, a kind of civic space where the main building meets Tenley Circle. One way to achieve that would be with a public staircase.

There are many precedents of public staircases connecting dense urban areas with campus environments, both grandiose and intimate. Columbia University's enormous cascading plaza does double duty as the main social location on campus and and as a threshold between the busy street and the academic campus above.

The smaller staircases at Chicago's Field Museum and New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art are great places to wait, socialize and watch: quintessential urban places.

And these don't have to be so grandiose. Polshek Partnership's entryway to the Brooklyn Museum includes two large stair-like seating areas with pragmatic ground-level access. Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland is a more casual example of an urban stair.

Also out in the Pacific Northwest, the FDR Memorial's designer Lawrence Halprin designed two fascinating parks that reveal the natural environment and the experience of spaces on sites with significant slopes.

These are all great places to wait, socialize and people watch. They are quintessential urban spaces, and illustrate how clever architecture can connect an urban environment to a campus by a great front door.

AU's choice to locate the law school at Tenley Circle is an opportunity to dramatically improve the character of the neighborhood, leaving it more vibrant and green. To take advantage of this opportunity, AU needs to rethink the urban design of their site plan.

In part 2, I'll discuss the historic preservation issues about the proposed campus.

Cross-posted at цarьchitect.

All of the work the architects have done so far is difficult to judge because the documentation provided by the university is limited and filled with inconsistencies.

Take, for example, the main dormitory building on Nebraska Avenue, Building 1. In site plans presented to the Zoning Commission, the protrusion containing the stairs and common spaces is to the north of the building, but in the floor plans, those spaces are to the south. I can't tell which is accurate. Frustratingly, nearly all drawings are rendered in a faux-sketch style that fudges important details.

But there is enough content to see that the current design is flawed at a scale below the site. That same building along Nebraska Avenue (#1) runs as an extruded block - a slab - lengthwise against the street, routing pedestrians to the corner crosswalks.

To break up the monotony of the building, the architects jagged the building about halfway. This shift, however, has no relation to the rhythms of the main campus across the road. Instead, the design relates only to the driveway AU is trying to retain from the current parking lot.

Loosely tied to the streets, the slabs and boxes float in the site plan, generally aligned to each other but without any juxtaposition or inflection. They are only linked together along the southern edge of the campus, where buildings are used to hide students from Westover Place.

Elsewhere, gaps between buildings form simple cuts without any compression or release. Where the odd angles of Buildings 2 and 5 come close, the architects simply sliced off part of Building 5 to keep the distance from wall to wall consistent.

Within the campus, the internal courtyards do not relate too well the buildings that define them, particularly on the interior organization. In the dormitories, the bedrooms line hallways of varying lengths. The circulation and social spaces in each building cross the grain, protruding as glass boxes at arbitrary points. Considering that these volumes mark the dormitories' front doors, it's baffling that they have no relation to one another.

Along the perimeter, the slabs meet the streets unsuccessfully. At the café spot, a slim, continuous canopy is meant to add a human scale to a Starbucks. Instead, the uninterrupted ribbon just heightens the sensation of flatness.

Because the sidewalks are separated by a buffer, there is no experience of approaching the building head on, again exacerbating the flatness. The only relief from the slab is some halting ornamentation thrown around the buildings, and even that is still maddeningly flat.

The aesthetics are modernistic in their slipping proportional relationships, and they're traditionalistic in the formal quotations. However, it has neither the clear proportions of a good modernist building, nor the interconnected part-to-whole relationship of a building of Greco-roman classicism. You can see the design as a series of layers meant to soften the impact of the building: a "contextual" brick facade on a precast one on a glass volume.

The word is overused, but these buildings are pastiches: a jumble of appliqués to a mass designed in a fundamentally different way, like a Soviet housing block lovingly rendered in loose watercolor. None of the wit or polemic of Venturi's paper facades exissts when the only reason to so explicitly drape the building is to make it blend in halfheartedly.

At East Campus, style is window dressing, another kind of buffer against undesired effects. Hiding a poster of Bruce Lee with an errant molding. The students in the dorms seem to understand that the administration does not: that the best style is no style. The best design manifests itself as useful spaces and memorable buildings that stimulate the students as much as the curriculum does.

The design of public and communal spaces is part of the culture of AU, and they embody the values of the university.

American has been successful architecturally in its sustainable design. The school has maintained and grown its campus greenery and a significant arboretum, and has eliminated car traffic from the heart of campus. Hartman-Cox's Business School addition and William McDonough's SIS building are both exemplary in their design for energy use and environmentally friendly materials.

Additionally, the 2011 Plan goes further with its commitment to LEED Gold certification for all of the buildings on east campus and LEED Silver on the main campus buildings. By 2021, this level of sustainability will be standard, if not a necessary. Whether a building still has an endearing affect and whether it works well will remain an asset.

In the end, the main issue may not be the result of poor architects, but of a poor client. In meetings, AU's representatives have not expressed the cultural or political relevance of their building projects. Again and again, the emphasis is that nothing is changing, or at least, no one will notice it. The design reflects this attitude, and East Campus's proposed architecture is an architecture of desperate stasis at the expense of good design.

As part of a larger strategy for growth and consolidation of its school, American will replace a parking lot with six buildings of two to six stories, including 590 beds, a bookstore, admissions offices, classrooms, administrative spaces, as well as some retail. The benefits for AU have been argued over many times; I'll let AU speak for itself. But the benefits of the expansion to the neighborhood and the city are public business.

The new facilities will bring students out of neighborhoods. Currently, AU undergrads are spread out, with roughly 2,000 of 6,000 living off-campus. Some of those students do so by choice, but AU only has room to house 67% of its students. Many juniors and seniors have to look to the neighborhood for a place to live.

The East Campus would pull students from the neighborhood and the Tenley Campus. Better residential facilities would mean fewer students spread out in the neighborhood, fewer noise disruptions, and less of a demand for vehicular commuting.

That reduction in traffic is no small thing. The new facilities adjacent to the central campus mean fewer trips for students and faculty alike. AU is also reducing the total number of parking spaces on campus, and has promised to expand its existing transportation demand management program. Even so, AU's transportation study found that its users never contributed more than 12% of all traffic during rush hour.

The rest of the vehicles are commuters passing through the Ward Circle area. The three avenues in the area, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Massachusetts currently serve primarily as automobile routes. The new buildings offer the potential to reorient the circle for those who live and work in the area.

Rather than gnarling traffic, as opponents have insisted, the slight uptick in pedestrian activity caused by the new buildings will force drivers to pay better attention to their presence on this urban street. The potential for more stoplights and a redesigned circle opens the opportunity to reduce speeds and dangerous behavior, likewise making the area safer for residents of all ages.

Through commercial frontage and foot traffic, Nebraska Avenue would become a pleasant place for locals to enjoy. Leaving the interior of the campus for students, a commercial perimeter would become another node in the geography of Upper Northwest. It would never become as dense and vibrant as Bethesda, let alone Tenleytown, but as a tertiary urban center, it can merge into the neighborhood.

Finally, the scheme laid out in the university's plan continues to facilitate the economic activity of American and its affiliates, estimated at $415 million. Although academic institutions do not pay taxes for noncommercial properties, the Examiner reported last week that students and faculty bring money and talent to the area when they come to the region's universities. By building on its land efficiently, AU will be making an optimal contribution to the city and enlivening the streetscape through the benefits of density.

There are potential negatives, which AU needs to mitigate. However, in its effort to compromise on objections, AU has layered the new buildings in greenery and minimized certain urban features, compromising potential, while still not satisfying opponents' demands.

For example, a 40' buffer of greenery adjacent to Westover Place feathers the campus into the neighborhood, but it's not good on all four sides. Adding a similar barrier of impenetrable greenery along Nebraska Avenue will separate the campus and retail from the sidewalk. It requires creating a second, separated walkway that will reduce the very urban characteristic of unplanned interactions. It is no small leap to see this buffer as segregating the school from the city.

Worsening the Nebraska Avenue elevation, the most recent plans call for a roadway to be punched through building #1 to the interior campus. A roadway in that place would disrupt the crucial urban space at the sidewalk. Instead, the plans should return to the right-in, right-out entrance on Massachusetts Avenue presented in the March 18th Final Plan. This is similar to the one at Westover Place, the Berkshire, and other nearby driveways.

At the least, the university could build on their plans for the Mary Graydon Tunnel and design the proposed road as a woonerf, prioritizing pedestrians in a roadway that runs through what is the students' front yard.

Likewise, AU should not be advocating for a new actuated signal on Nebraska Avenue. Instead, it should build timed signals that guarantee AU students the opportunity to cross as frequently and in rhythm with the city's traffic.

A new stoplight, combined with the recommended changes to Ward Circle, would make the area safer than any phystical barrier by limiting the incentive to jaywalk. If a physical deterrent is necessary, planters between the street and the sidewalk should be sufficient, as at Bethesda Row.

Finally, the project should serve as a catalyst for alternative transportation in the area. Bike lanes on New Mexico Avenue would mean better safety and better quality of life for students and neighbors alike. On campus, the administration already promotes a progressive Transport Demand Management plan, with dedicated ZipCar spaces, Capitol Bikeshare, carpooling assistance, shuttles, and SmartBenefits. But without adequate facilities, the full benefits of cycling and bus transit will not be realized.

Smart Growth refers to planning that is appropriate not only at the local level, but across multiple scales: architectural, local, metropolitan, and regional. AU's expansion plan, which would consolidate students, tame traffic, and create a new node of community, works at the larger three scales. Where it fails is in the way that it addresses the street and human scale, compromising enormous potential for solutions that will please no one and will require remediation in the future.

The Zoning commission should endorse AU's 2011 Campus Plan with alterations at the architectural scale.

The most ridiculous claim is that the very sight of student dorm windows is itself a grave offense that requires action from the zoning code:

Student residences should be built with windows that do not open to limit noise impacts on neighboring residents and with tinted windows that shield from residents' views the type of window hangings that are characteristically found in the windows of AU's student dorms.

At the University of Maryland, I found that the window hangings "characteristically found in the windows" of dorms are in fact window blinds. Does the ANC object to window blinds? Do they demand Roman shades, valances, velvet curtains or simply taupe window treatments?

Another controversy surrounds the treatment of AU's East Campus site directly south of Ward Circle NW. This site is currently a parking lot and report reasonably requests the university construct a "signature building" on the site.

However, the report contains a series of demands of what should not go on that site, namely students, conferences and retail space.

In fact the report laments "the loss of commercial space and neighborhood-serving retail stemming from AU's need to find more space to meet its needs." Then just 7 pages later, the ANC chastises the university for proposing to add retail space on Nebraska Avenue, noting, "This would be the only block with any retail on Nebraska Avenue throughout its length in Washington, DC."

Which is it? Here the ANC clearly shows a preference for complaining about change over maintaining any intellectual consistency in its review.

Addtionally, while the report rightly agrees that bikesharing will reduce vehicle use, it also resents the incorporation of "the Capital Bike Share [sic] Program—for 10,000 mostly non-taxpaying residents—many of them temporary—living on premium-value residentially zoned property that is producing no property tax revenue".

Though the ANC wants the university to pay the capital cost of each new campus station, which is a reasonable request, it relays the request in a classist, prejudicial way.

Student residents, who often have little or no income, tend to pay little in taxes, but that does not diminish their rights as residents. Furthermore, it's troubling that the ANC resents any class of people "living on premium-value residentially zoned property".

That's what residents do: they reside on residentially-zoned property. The ANC suggests it's upset that a certain kind of people are taking up space on this "premium" property.

Certainly the ANC has a legitimate interest in ameliorating legitimate nuisances, but regulating window dressing should not be the matter of the ANC or the zoning code. Furthermore, the ANC obliterates it own credibility offering contradictory sentiments on the reduction and proposed addition of retail space.

Worst of all, the ANC report relegates AU's students to second-class citizenship, treating them not as fellow residents, but as a nuisance class of people who must be segregated and concentrated into the center of the campus, far from "real" residents.

The ANC should eliminate its thinly veiled opposition to students as a class of people, remove trivial complaints about window dressings, and focus on more important matters: How a university, its students, and long-term residents can exist in harmony and mutual respect.

Instead, at Ward Circle, the report suggests adding leading pedestrian intervals, where pedestrians can start crossing before turning cars get the green. More descriptive guide signs, like the ones at Logan and Thomas Circles, would help drivers understand the location of the different roads and what lane to use to reach each.

At the Massachusetts Avenue intersections, the report recommends adding traffic signals. This would help pedestrians cross more safely, especially as more development at American University increases the numbers of people crossing streets in this area. It would also simplify the merging and weaving between cars already in the circle and cars entering at Massachusetts Avenue.

At Chevy Chase Circle, the recommendations include the same guide signs, as well as large overhead signs for each cross street. To help pedestrians, the crosswalks to the center of the circle would get more signs and stop bars in the short term, and signals in the long term.

Finally, the study recommends signals where Western Avenue touches the circle, which would reduce delays for both Western Avenue drivers and those on some other streets where they often have to wait as cars come into the circle from Western.

Besides the earlier DDOT traffic studies, this report also includes a few recommendations from the recent Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action (CAPA) audit, such as a HAWK signal and curb extensions at Connecticut Avenue and Northampton Street.

Another CAPA recommendation, for adjustments to the intersection of Veazey and Connecticut, conflicts in some ways with UDC's own recommendations, and the Office of Planning is doing a streetscape study of the area as well. DDOT plans to integrate all three to create a final plan for this area.

CAPA also suggested narrowing the slip lane and adding a raised crosswalk on the south corner of Connecticut and Nebraska and retiming the signals to help pedestrians; these recommendations didn't gain the needed consensus within DDOT. Finally, CAPA wants to increase pedestrian crossing times at many intersections on Connecticut; DDOT says their safety and signals team is reviewing those recommendations.

DDOT has many different groups that try to balance conflicting needs and often come to different conclusions about moving vehicles as fast as possible versus maximizing pedestrian safety. Sometimes one view wins out; sometimes another.

Implementing the recommendations will require money, though federal funding can pay for much of it and, at least for now, there are pots of federal money that have to go to pedestrian and bicycle projects. Everything in the Rock Creek West II Livability Study would cost about $9.4 million.

DDOT has identified funding for some of these items, though projects not completed quickly could wait some time. However, having a plan for pedestrian improvements makes it more likely that future road reconstruction projects or development projects would incorporate these changes, if DDOT hasn't been able to make them already.