Posts about Hilton

Preservation

Boasberg dismisses "irrelevancies" at Hilton hearing

by David Alpert   •   October 2, 2008 3:49 pm

Today's HPRB meeting followed a familiar pattern, with Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly cutting off witnesses for bringing up issues the Board can't consider—even those that were mentioned in the staff report.

Boasberg started out the hearing by eliminating the building's impact on the surrounding historic districts as a factor. Since the building is outside historic districts (though surrounded by five), Boasberg said, the board "can't rule something too massive for a historic district the building is not in."

The staff report drew fire from neighbors for suggesting that if HPRB rejected the plan, the Hilton might successfully appeal by arguing that the project has "special merit." According to DC law,

Special merit means a plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.

The need for a more modern hotel containing larger exhibition space seems hardly a high priority for community services. If that's special merit, then why not the development planned for the Cleveland Park Metro, whose opposition drove Boasberg's preservation career and led to the creation of the Cleveland Park district? After all, mixed-use density around Metro should be a higher priority for the District of Columbia than one hotel among many.

But the "special merit" argument didn't enter into the hearing either, as Boasberg dismissed it as irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nor did discussions of loading docks go much of anywhere, the topic that the staff report stretched to cover. Architect Volker Zinser presented alternative suggestions for the loading off the driveway loop on T Street, but Boasberg pushed him to abridge the loading discussion as another irrelevant topic.

Comments about building closer to the street, on the other hand, were in order, and Zinser presented some other options for development along 19th and Florida that would give the corner a more residential feel and avoid exacerbating the "tower in a park" feel. But since preserving views of the landmark are paramount, as David Maloney said, buildings closer to the street could, if anything, block more of the view for those standing on Florida or T. Plus, as board member Andrew Aurbach pointed out, while he'd personally prefer a plan that "reopen[ed] the urban side on Florida and T to open the streetscape, that's not the proposal" and that proposal is all they could evaluate.

Still, several other board members also criticized the sttreet-level elements of the plan while admitting they had few options. Maria Casarella said that the architects "inherit[ed] the fatal flaws" of the building, and that while the tower design is impressive, "below the plinth it's really weak." Robert Sonderman asked to see earlier concept sketches with the building starting closer to the street. Sonderman also recommended a more curvilinear approach to the corner entrance, which is one of the few silver linings in this design.

Ultimately, the board voted to accept the staff report, which recommended holding off approval pending agreement on the loading docks but generally assenting to the overall direction. It's not clear how the Hilton and community could agree on a solution there that satisfy both, but one way or another, this project will most likely be built substantially as is.

Development

Making an un-urban Hilton slightly more urban

by David Alpert   •   October 1, 2008 12:21 pm

Constructed, as it was, during an era of pedestrian-unfriendly designs and intended to flank a planned freeway, the Washington Hilton at Connecticut Avenue and Columbia Road is one of DC's most suburban buildings. The HPO staff report writes,

The Hilton was ... built at a time when concerns of automobile travel were paramount and attention to the amenities of traditional city streets and pedestrian-oriented urbanism were on the wane. The hotel floats above the created landscape of an artificial platform, seeming separate and aloof from the city around it.

The high earthen berm along T Street and Florida Avenue ... rises from a substantial retaining wall along the sidewalk to the surface of the recreational terrace 20 feet above. The result is a meager and unfriendly pedestrian environment devoid of much visual interest or activity. Pedestrian access from Connecticut Avenue is similarly unwelcoming, and there is an unresolved architectural ambiguity about which entrance the unfamiliar pedestrian should aim for.

The logical solution would be to construct buildings right along the Florida Avenue and T Street edges of the Hilton, with windows and entrances along the sidewalk and perhaps a few stores or cafes nearer the commercial Connecticut Avenue end. Unfortunately, there are already levels of "underground" parking behind the berm, leaving insufficient space to build at ground level.

The existing design exploits a loophole in the zoning rules, allowing the parking above the street level but below the landscaped ground surface to be considered "underground" and thus not part of the building's FAR or lot coverage. The parking and its covering berm even protrude beyond the property line in some places. Unfortunately, because the 40-year-old building was able to build what amounts to an above-ground parking garage obscured by some dirt and scrub growth, it's impossible to now construct a more urbanist addition.

The Hilton's design makes a few small advances in this area. The plan moves the swimming pool from the center of the courtyard (where the tower would go) to the southeast corner. They propose replacing the sloped berm with a windowed entrance to the health club directly off the street, surrounded by a "green wall" that will also "soften the appearance of the loading docks."

The new addition will also break the berm along T Street with a pedestrian entrance to the residential building atop an existing vehicular ramp down to the garage. Unfortunately, the pedestrian-unfriendly driveway and porte-cochère along T Street will remain as is, and may even become more traffic-choked than they already are: cars will access the new apartment parking from that driveway loop, and Hilton officials say they hope to offer 100% valet parking for apartment dwellers.

100% valet parking is actually a space-saving measure, since valet parking can pack vehicles more tightly and offer the one space per unit the Hilton intends in fewer square feet. Still, for condos intended to sell for $1.2 million apiece, "floating" above the landscape, with everyone getting a parking space and valet service 24 hours a day, it's hard not to wonder how often the residents will really use the pedestrian entrance at all.

HPO staff recommend a few further improvements, writing, "Discussions with the applicant included ideas about a more sculptural, functional treatment of the berm that might be both more conducive to a livelier streetscape and provide more of a visual focal point from Connecticut Avenue." I'm curious what specific "functional" elements they mean. Benches? Fountains?

HPO also praises the new pedestrian stairway from Connecticut Avenue (left side of the image above), but recommends modifying it to better direct pedestrians to the sidewalk instead of the middle of the driveway oval. They also suggest another driveway along the southern side of the oval.

Every edge of the Hilton's design reflects the mid-century thought process about public space: the street level is for cars, and people should only walk from the building to their cars in the driveway. Unfortunately, this design, whether truly the only practical one or not, preserves most of that feel. The Hilton will remain an oasis of suburbia amid, above, and aloof from some of DC's most lively, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods.

Preservation

On Hilton, HPO takes broad view of historic compatibility

by David Alpert   •   September 30, 2008 1:30 pm

The Historic Preservation Office is recommending that HPRB wait to approve the Hilton's proposed renovations until the hotel can work out an agreement with the community over loading docks. Once that is done, the staff report recommends moving ahead with the project.

Loading is a severe problem along 19th Street. When the Hilton was first constructed, planners anticipated a freeway running along Florida Avenue west of Connecticut and then eastward between T and U. The Hilton was to sit at the edge of the freeway, and 19th Street would have been primarily an access road on and off the freeway.

Instead, thankfully, 19th stayed a neighborhood residential street, but instead of sitting under a freeway, the loading docks now impact the neighborhood. The bays are not deep enough for many of today's trucks, which stick out across the sidewalk, blocking pedestrian traffic and creating noise.

Neighbors and the ANCs of Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle have consistently brought up this issue, often to deaf ears. At the landmark hearing in July, HPRB Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly cut off witnesses who mentioned the loading problems, claiming they had no place in the landmark decision. But, at least according to the staff report, they are appropriate to discuss when reviewing the proposed modifications.

One of historic preservation's controversies revolves around how broadly preservationists should evaluate each project. Is their mandate simply to consider the aesthetic appearance of the building in the context of a historic area, or can they address other concerns? How do we define what factors go into determining if a change is 'compatible'?

ANCs such as Dupont's have regularly clashed with HPRB over this very issue. For the building at 1433 T Street, the allegations of tenant abuse fell outside HPRB's mandate to approve or disapprove the proposed alterations on historic grounds. When rejecting the raze permit for Third Church, HPRB Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly stressed that the Board could not consider the religious liberty arguments made by church officials.

The impact of loading docks, however, represent a grayer area. One could argue that loading and traffic impacts a historic district in more direct ways than tenant abuse or religious liberty, and therefore that it's appropriate for HPRB to insist on a satisfactory solution to the problem as part of a historic review.

The report, primarily written by Historic Preservation Office director David Maloney, states,

From its initial discussions with the applicants, the staff has stressed both the importance of achieving compatibility with the historic landmark and the need to address long-standing community concerns about the impact of the hotel design and operations on its neighbors. Some of these concerns relate more to urban planning than historic preservation issues, but in the context of a multi-year project representing the most substantial change to the building since its completion, a thorough consultation on these issues with all interested parties has seemed the only appropriate course of action.

What to do about the loading docks? Neighbors have asked the Hilton to move the loading docks into the garage, creating a passageway where they would enter on T Street and exit on 19th Street. According to the staff report, the owners' analysis shows this to be cost prohibitive. Instead, the Hilton has proposed reducing the two lanes of traffic exiting the garage to one lane, making room for wider and deeper loading bays. The trash compactor would also go in a deeper bay with room for a truck to completely park in front without sticking out.

Neighbors have panned the Hilton's loading dock suggestions, arguing they don't do enough to alleviate the issues. 19th Street is narrow, and trucks often have to back up several times to get into the spaces. Since the Hilton stands to make a great deal of money, they argue, they should do more to fix this problem rather than push negative impacts of the expansion onto the surrounding streets.

Tomorrow: The rest of the Hilton's plan, including the urbanism issues along the Connecticut Avenue, T Street, and Florida Avenue faces.

Public Spaces

Hybrid taxis to Hilton towers: this week in hearings

by David Alpert   •   September 29, 2008 7:33 am

I'm back! France was very relaxing, and I also learned a lot about how they practice urbanism and suburbanism. But first, what's on tap this week:

Tax-y credits: The DC Council will consider a bill to offer taxi operators a $2,000 tax credit for buying a hybrid taxicab (or other "alternative fuel vehicle"). It will also require the administration to prepare a report on hybrid taxis in DC and set goals for the percentage of hybrid taxis starting at 5% in 2009 up to 50% in 2017. 2 pm, Wilson Building (1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW) and via webcast.

Reconnecting Champlain: Champlain Street in Adams Morgan runs under the Marie Reed Learning Center, but doesn't connect. DDOT is holding a public meeting tonight to discuss opening the road. 6-8 pm, Third District Police Station, 1620 V St NW.

Capitol Hill Town Square: Neighbors will weigh in pro and con about options to create a "town square" at the underutilized plaza(s) around Eastern Market Metro. Wednesday, 7-9 pm at Tyler Elementary School, 1001 G Street SE.

The Hilton, finally: HPRB will consider the Hilton's proposed development. Their site claims the Historic Preservation staff report will be posted by Sepmteber 26, but isn't yet; probably today. The hearing is 9 am Thursday at 441 4th St NW (One Judiciary Square), Suite 220-South and webcast.

Development

Is our city a little more suburban today than it was yesterday?

by David Alpert   •   September 25, 2008 4:00 pm

[Autoposted while I'm in France]

Was anyone watching HPRB or the Shell public space committee meetings? Is the Hilton going ahead with a big cylindrical tower? Is DDOT allowing a gas station to use public space? Post any interesting news in the comments.

Tonight is the National Capital Framework Plan (5 pm, 401 9th St, North Lobby, Suite 500) and the zoning hearing on height (441 4th St NW, Suite 220-South or Webcast).

Public Spaces

Tonight's and tomorrow's meetings

by David Alpert   •   September 24, 2008 3:00 pm

[Autoposted while I'm in France]

Even more interesting meetings are coming up. Tonight:

17th Street Streetscape: What is DDOT planning 17th Street in Dupont? Is it too late to fix any failings in the plan? 6 pm at Foundry United Methodist Church, 1500 16th St NW.

Tomorrow:

Historic Preservation Review Board: At 10 am tomorrow, HPRB may consider concept plans for the Hilton. Or, they may postpone it until October, which both ANC 1C (Adams Morgan) and 2B (Dupont) have requested. They'll also review the proposed renovations of 1433 T with its alleged violations of tenants' rights, but since HPRB can't consider those factors in its decisionmaking, look for a meeting where Tersh Boasberg repeatedly cuts off members of the public who try to appeal to Commissioners on non-historic criteria. You can watch the meeting here.

Public space hearing on 10th and Maryland Shell: This is the first of two opportunities to stop the proposed Shell in Northeast Capitol Hill. 10 am at 941 North Capitol Street, 7th Floor.

National Capital Framework Plan: NCPC is collecting more public comment on their Framework Plan. BeyondDC has great coverage of the plan's highlights and weaknesses. 5-7 pm Thursday at 401 9th St NW, North Lobby, Suite 500.

Zoning review: Height: Parking was controversial, but sparks will fly again tomorrow evening as the Zoning Commission considers proposed new height regulations. It's wonky and arcane, but how DC interprets the Height Act (what is a "business street"? Can a building get its allowable height from one street but measure its starting point from another?) has stirred much debate in zoning circles. 6:30-8:30 pm tomorrow at 441 4th St NW, Suite 220-South or watch it live here.

Preservation

HPRB landmarks Hilton because it's kind of like other landmarks

by David Alpert   •   July 24, 2008 1:28 pm

This morning, HPRB reviewed the landmark nomination for the Washington Hilton. I've argued before that this building isn't worthy of being landmarked. Many people have made respectable arguments on both sides, and I respect those who feel this building is in fact iconic. But one thing worries me: the HPRB members who voted in favor spoke less about this building's particular merit, justifying their votes primarily based on this building's similarity to other modern buildings that have been landmarked, such as the HUD building and Tax Court discussed last month.

But the HUD building is a step above the Hilton. It was more notable in its time, has been more widely recognized, and its architect is much more famous. If we landmarked the Hilton just because it's almost as good as the HUD building, where will it end? Will we next landmark a building that's a bit less significant, and then another step below that? Once we have the "momentum" (a word board member John Vlach used to explain his vote) of landmarking buildings like this, will that momentum roll unstoppably through the full set of modern structures across the city? After all, I'm sure historians can come up with something nice to say about every building.

Many residents showed up to speak about the Hilton, including Dupont ANC members Will Stephens and Ramon Estrada. All opposed the Hilton's planned residential addition, but some chose to oppose the landmarking while others chose to support it while urging HPRB to include the grounds in the landmark, grounds which the new development would disturb.

Parking

We need better loading and performance parking around the Hilton

by David Alpert   •   July 10, 2008 4:01 pm

Last night, the Dupont Circle ANC passed a thoughtfully crafted resolution on the Hilton proposed development. The ANC opposes the landmarking, and also opposes the project as presented. They objected to the inadequate loading docks, insufficient parking, the mass of the development, and the swimming pool. But as Commissioner Mike Silverstein emphasized, the primary concern of the ANC was the loading docks. If the Hilton fixes the loading problem, Silverstein said, "this ANC will not micromanage" the project.

Hilton representative Peter Comey claimed that the Hilton's new owners are working hard to better manage the loading, such as insisting that trucks and taxis respect the rules by not idling on neighborhood streets. Residents, however, argued that problems persist, and that trucks violate the no truck areas multiple times each day.

According to Comey, the Hilton has been unable to work out a loading solution that works for the neighborhood and city agencies that is financially feasible for the Hilton's owners. The ANC responded skeptically. Commissioner Bob Meehan asked why the Hilton could not use some of the underground parking areas for loading rather than parking. After all, the Adams Morgan ANC requested a reduction in residential parking from the excessive amount the Hilton owners proposed.

Why did the Hilton propose so much parking (up to 2-3 spaces per unit, according to Ann Hargrove)? I asked Comey about that. He explained that they planned large amounts of underground parking in response to neighborhood concerns; they were surprised by the Adams Morgan ANC request. This may be a case of reacting too literally to residents' concerns.

Today, many employees park on the street. During the day, many of them go out every two hours to move their cars around. In the evenings, the on-street demand from employees and guests makes parking very difficult. It's understandable that residents want to do something about this.

But building a huge garage doesn't solve this problem, and to the extent it alleviates one issue, it creates others. A big garage will encourage even more people to drive, once they don't have to repark every two hours. Excessive parking for new residents will generate a lot of traffic.

The ANC resolution balances these considerations. It asks the Hilton to "incorporate ... sufficient parking to reasonably accommodate employees, residents, guests, and visitors," but also urges the Hilton to use SmartBenefits, Zipcars, Metro shuttles, bike sharing, and other strategies to encourage non-automobile commuting by its employees and the residents of the new complex.

This is a perfect place to institute performance parking. Just like at the ballpark or in Columbia Heights, we have a large (proposed) development that will generate significant transportation demand along with high existing demand. Instead of suffering through on-street parking problems, the ballpark now lets residents park for free and visitors pay to park on neighborhood streets. It's working there, and something similar can work here.

I live only a few blocks away, and Lauriol Plaza also brings in huge numbers of visitors who park for free on evenings and weekends. If visitors pay, we can ensure spaces are available for residents and visitors alike, generate revenue to benefit the neighborhood, and reduce traffic.

It's clearly time for a North Dupont Circle performance parking program. With such a program, a reasonable but not excessive market-rate parking supply at the Hilton, and most importantly a workable loading arrangement that doesn't unduly burden public space and residential streets, the Hilton's proposed expansion can go forward without undue burden on the community.

It's too bad we couldn't have a more urban-friendly development, like the townhouses Comey told the ANC were part of the original proposal. But if we must have a suburban-style circular tower, we can still use urban transportation tools to make the project fit better with the neighborhood functionally than it does architecturally.

Preservation

ANC, HPRB should reject Hilton landmarking

by David Alpert   •   July 9, 2008 1:25 pm

I've been researching the Hilton hotel's expansion plans and thinking hard about its landmarking. I endorsed landmarking the HUD building, but in contrast, the Hilton's qualification under the landmark critera is questionable at best. Still, I pondered that perhaps the parking exemption might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

After finding out more about the project, I've come down against landmarking. We should not landmark this building. I'll be encouraging the Dupont Circle ANC to oppose the landmark nomination at tonight's meeting, and urging HPRB to reject it when they meet this month.

Landmarking would preserve and exacerbate the loading problems.

The biggest concern of community members is loading. When the Hilton was built, a freeway was planned along Florida Avenue from the West End and across to U Street; 19th Street would have been a major access road with ramps, and for this reason the Hilton built loading docks on 19th instead of to the south.

Instead, the freeway was cancelled and 19th Street stayed a neighborhood street. Today, the loading docks are way too small for modern trucks. Long trucks stick out into the sidewalk, trucks have to back up and do 9-point turns to get in and out, and there is constant noise affecting residents.

If the Hilton builds a new condo tower, they will have to improve the loading, which doesn't meet a host of codes today. But if they win landmark status, they may be exempt. That would worsen the situation for the neighborhood.

Parking

Adams Morgan ANC narrowly endorses less parking at Hilton

by David Alpert   •   July 3, 2008 3:25 pm

The Hilton Hotel is planning an as-of-right expansion to add a condominium tower in their east courtyard. Residents are concerned about loading (the loading docks are right on 19th Street, very close to homes, and with very little space for trucks to turn around), and the possible loss to the community of the pool (which will probably be moved and may become less public) and grounds (where the tower will go).

There is also the inevitable debate about traffic and parking. Will the condos bring more traffic? Will more people park in the neighborhood? Last night, the Adams Morgan ANC narrowly passed a resolution, introduced by commissioner Barry Weise (whose district contains expressing community opinions on the project. The resolution asked the Hilton to address the loading issues and preserve community access to the pool and grounds. And it had something to say about parking.

The ANC asked the Hilton to limit residential parking to one space per three units, which is still not extremely low but is lower than the zoning in that area ordinarily allows. The (sensible) rationale, as Weise explained it, is that they want the project to attract residents who plan not to own cars. The Dupont Circle Metro is not far, and the resolution encouraged having Zipcars in the garage.

On the other hand, the resolution encourages more parking for employees and guests. It's not clear why the hotel couldn't also be attracting guests who plan not to rent cars, or attract employees who use one of the many bus lines in the area rather than driving. Nonetheless, it's a good step that an ANC endorsed less parking.

Not everyone agreed with that provision. Neighborhood resident and parking minimum reform opponent Ann Hargrove spoke up in opposition, and commissioner Emily Mechner introduced an unsuccessful amendment to strike the clause. But it passed nonetheless.

The Hilton's parking situation bears strongly on the landmark application because historic structures can be exempt from parking requirements. Ironically, the desire to do the pro-urbanist thing (not build too much parking) is leading to an anti-urbanist process, of wrapping the Hilton's street-deadening architecture in layers of preservationist amber.

If, indeed, historic preservation is the way to limit parking, it may be a worthwhile tradeoff. After all, nobody is going to be replacing the building with a better one anytime soon. More urbanist designs, like putting townhouses along T Street, ran afoul of logistical problems involving the underground garage, public space considerations, and neighborhood opposition. If a tower in the park is all we'll get, at least it should be a tower in the park for people who don't drive for their everyday commutes.