Posts about Utopia Project

Preservation

"Too big" isn't a historic argument

by David Alpert   •   March 6, 2009 3:53 pm

What's "historic"? The debate over what does and does not count as "historic" pervades most preservation controversies. The national criteria for deeming something historic are very broad. That's helpful for preserving the truly historic, but people opposed to the destruction of nearly any structure can make an argument that it's historic. Arlington's preservation board recently rejected a mixed-use proposal to replace an aging strip mall because they didn't like the size. And in response to recent controversies over property being landmarked against owners' wishes, Montgomery County Councilmember Mike Knapp proposed tightening that county's preservation laws. How do we properly draw the line between preservation and anti-change-ism?

In the Buckingham neighborhood of Arlington, at the corner of North Pershing Drive and North Glebe Road are a series of one-story commercial buildings. They are set fairly far back from the street with a row or two of parking in front. Georgetown Strategic Capital, which is also building the Utopia project at 14th and U in DC, wants to replace these buildings with two four-story mixed-use buildings. But a few weeks ago, Arlington's Historical Affairs and Landmark Review Board rejected the proposal, calling the buildings "too big."

Most of the buildings in the Buckingham neighborhood are low in height. Is that lowness historic? Is having buildings set back far from the street historic? Is a lack of walkability historic? Is empty space historic? Some have called all of these characteristics "historic" at various times. Typically, that coincides with opposition to an alternative, like calling Brookland's empty lots "historic" to oppose a plan that could fill them with housing and retail.

DC Historic Preservation Review Board Chair Tersh Boasberg frequently points out that historic preservation doesn't trump zoning. If zoning allows a building of a certain height, Their actions often match those words, but not always. On the Hilton hotel, HPRB refused to to shrink the height of the proposed addition for this reason. But on the Utopia project, they did "sculpt" away an entire floor. (The Hilton was not in a historic district, while the Utopia project was, making the two not entirely comparable.)

If preservation doesn't trump zoning, it doesn't trump zoning. Arlington's HALRB shouldn't have the power to declare a building too tall. That's the role of Arlington's zoning code. If they want to require a facade of brick, or stone, glass or metal, or more windows, or fewer, those are valid compatibility questions. The overall height is not.

In recent years, preservation boards have often edged over the line from preserving the historic to preserving what the board members personally want. In DC, landmarking of structures such as Third Church, against the owners' wishes, have triggered proposed legislation to limit landmarking. According to Wednesday's Gazette, Montgomery County president Mike Knapp introduced legislation to raise the bar on what's "historic" when property owners oppose landmarking.

In those cases, Knapp's legislation would require a property to meet three landmarking criteria rather than just one. Montgomery's criteria, like DC's, mirror national ones. A property can be historic if it was "associated with" historic events or people, "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction," represent the "work for a master," possess "high artistic values," and more. Many of these criteria are extremely vague. Almost anything "embodies" some "characteristics". The current language of preservation speaks very expansively about historicity. That provides too many opportunities for antis to hijack the process to preserve not just what's worth preserving, but to oppose any alternative.

Some oppose preservation entirely. I do not. There are many very historically significant buildings in our region. Our historic districts also derive enormous value from the integrity of their buildings from a unified period. However, preservation's realm is the aesthetic appearance of the built environment, such as its materials and structure. The form of buildings, such as their size and setback, is properly the domain of zoning.

DC's historic districts have also brought valuable design review to many projects. Many recent development projects in DC have gotten better after passing before the discerning lens of HPO and HPRB. They've forced many blank walls, for example, to become better articulated facades. In fact, other old neighborhoods like Bloomingdale, and even mostly new neighborhoods like Near Southeast, would benefit from some similar design review. However, we should limit that review to the aesthetic and artistic decisions the architects make. But quite simply, if the zoning allows a four story building, and the property owner wants a four story building, then four stories there shall be.

Parking

This alternative is technically impossible because neighbors would complain

by David Alpert   •   November 19, 2008 3:16 pm

Do transportation consulting companies really provide unbiased analysis, or do they simply conclude whatever their paying client wants to hear?

We already know that "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz of New York is unafraid to tell NYC's teachers that they don't deserve special parking rights, but will twist ridership figures to please the Town of Chevy Chase and earn his $374,000 fee. Schwartz cobbled together the report they wanted, concluding that the Purple Line should run past other people's schools instead of their golf courses (and slower).

I smell some similar twisting in Gorove/Slade's report on where to put the garage entrance for the Utopia project at 14th and U. I've already written multiple times about this particular curb cut fight, where I come down (barely) on the side of the 14th Street entrance. But we may end up with the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

Some of these wrong reasons appear in the report. In the scoping process, DDOT asked Gorove/Slade to show why using the alley for parking is infeasible. It may be, but the report instead simply argues that the 14th Street entrance is not so bad. The biggest question in approving any curb cut is whether implementing it will harm pedestrians, but the report gives short shrift to this issue. After the table of contents, the word 'pedestrian' doesn't even appear until page 7. Instead of analyzing pedestrian safety, the report simply shows pictures of bulb-outs DDOT has already proposed for 14th and U, and then asserts that since those will improve pedestrian conditions, everything will be okay.

The bulk of the report focuses on vehicular Level of Service. It uses terms like "[this] intersection would fail" to describe an intersection with high traffic volume, reinforcing the outdated traffic engineer framing that success means moving large numbers of vehicles through an area. All of this LOS analysis (which takes up most of the space in the report) simply verifies that the front garage entrance won't worsen vehicle traffic. It's not nececssarily better; it's simply no worse. The consulting team spent a lot of time counting the numbers of vehicles going through each intersection, but published no comparable statistics for pedestrians.

The interior alleys at the site are very wide (30 feet), with plenty of room for cars or even to add sidewalks. The alleys connecting to U and T Streets, however, are only 10 feet (5 and 6 above). Two-way traffic on both of these alleys force cars and trucks to maneuver gingerly. Making both of these alleys one-way, with all traffic entering on U and exiting on T, could address this problem. The Gorove/Slade report analyzes this option, but dismisses it because residents won't like it:

Capacity analysis results indicate that the alley would operate efficiently with the one-way southbound restrictions. However, ... the southbound restriction would increase truck traffic along T Street between the alleyway and 14th Street, which is now striped with a bike lane. These impacts would be objectionable to the adjacent community, and the prospective residential and retail users of the proposed development.

The report glosses over mention of impacts, objectionable or otherwise, to the many people who will take Metro to this area, or who live nearby on other streets besides T, and will walk around here. They will feel the impact of a front garage entrance. It also dismisses the impact on the bicycle commuters who ride down 14th to work every day. They weren't counted, and their objections unheard. Instead, the authors simply dismiss an alternative which would "be objectionable to the adjacent community".

Gorove/Slade's report does make some valid points. They also, and more validly, criticize the one-way option for its effect on the Reeves Center, whose garage entrance faces U Street across from the alley. According to the report, having traffic turn into the alley from U and also into and out of Reeves at the same spot could create more vehicular problems.

The report also makes the very good point that the U Street sidewalk is much narrower than the one at 14th. Having vehicles exit there could be much more dangerous than on 14th. Even the one-way option creates more pedestrian conflicts at this tight spot.

Unfortunately, I simply don't find this report persuasive. It makes a few good points amid a plethora of lousy ones. To conclude, as this report does, that a 14th Street entrance is "the better option", it's important to consider all the impacts. Instead, Gorove/Slade simply considered some (like traffic and neighbor complaints) while ignoring others (like the needs of pedestrians on 14th).

Plus, "better" isn't the standard for a curb cut; the development must be impractical without one. And by impractical, that means for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and cars, not just for cars. It also doesn't mean politically impractical. I do believe this development may indeed meet this burden. But this report fails to show that, and does a disservice to everyone trying to rationally decide this issue. On persuasiveness Level of Service, it gets an F.

Parking

Our curb cut is limited to the present circumstances

by David Alpert   •   November 6, 2008 2:26 pm

How often does Councilmember Phil Mendelson (at-large) personally show up to the Board of Zoning Adjustment to testify in support of a variance? I suspect not often, but show up he did at yesterday's BZA hearing on the 14th and U "Utopia" project.

Mendelson read a letter in support of locating the proposed garage entrance on 14th Street instead of in the alley behind. The developer, the Dupont ANC, and local residents and businesses all want this as well. Councilmember Jack Evans also submitted a concurring letter, which his commitee clerk, Jeff Coudriet (who also lives nearby), presented at the hearing. The BZA voted to approve the curb cut and all of the variances the developer needed.

I agree in this case. This is an unusual block with an unusual alley system, and the garage entrance poses many problems. But I'm very concerned that this not set precedent for other, less exceptional situations. Along U Street west of 13th, developers plan to replace the one-story, bland Rite Aid with a larger hotel and ground-floor retail. The rear of the building faces a standard alley, but a row of townhouses back onto the other side of the alley. Some of those residents are trying to pressure that developer The developer currently proposes to build their garage entrance across the 13th Street sidewalk, instead of off the adjacent straight alley.

Unlike at Utopia, using this alley doesn't require cars to make two sharp turns and take three separate alleys. Unlike at Utopia, there are no alley dwellings. This garage entrance could be located at the eastern end of the alley, so cars only have to drive on a very short part. I'd even be okay with widening the alley a little bit right at the end, so there's enough room for one car in each direction. But another, extremely wide curb cut right next to an existing alley curb cut harms the rest of the public too much, while alley access to the garage harms the local property owners little.

It's clear that some major political chips got called in to get Mendelson to show up in person for the Utopia curb cut, and to generate the repeated letters from Evans supporting neighbors' position on the project. The political pressure was so potent that yesterday afternoon, DDOT decided to withdraw its original comments opposing the curb cut. That's politics, and I don't agree with those who complain about corruption every time an elected official weighs in. Taking positions on issues and pushing agencies on behalf of constituents is what elected officials do, and if you want to influence them, organize.

While Evans and Mendelson weren't wrong about this curb cut, we need to get organized and connected enough to ensure that Councilmembers aren't sending letters in support of every curb cut when some residents don't want traffic in their alley. Alley traffic impacts the residents, but a curb cut impacts everyone else. A curb cut increases the opportunities for vehicles to hit pedestrians and bicycles; it reduces the space we have for sidewalk cafes; it visually widens the street, making drivers go faster.

Fortunately, Mendelson's letter gives us good ammunition for differentiating the Utopia case from others, like the 13th and U Rite Aid/Hotel:

There are very few communities in the District like the one comprising the residents of [the alleys behind Utopia]. The two others that come to mind are Blagden Alley in Shaw and Brown's Court on Capitol Hill ... It is important to consider that this space is atypical. It is unlike the typical square with all the dwellings fronting on the public street, only to back up to alleys. [The residents of these alleys] must walk down their alleys to go anywhere, which creates unavoidable pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

Public policy must balance a larger impact on a few against the smaller impact on many. Typically, in the political process, the few are better organized and louder than the many. Through this blog and Smart Growth organizations, we the many are getting organized. And I want to make it clear to Evans, Mendelson, and any other elected official that while I don't disagree with their views on the Utopia curb cut, such an exception, and their political muscle on its behalf, should be extremely, extremely rare.

Update: Wallach Place resident Guy Podgornik wrote in to explain that Wallach residents (the people across the alley) weren't pushing for the 13th Street curb cut, and heard this pressure came from HPO. I'm glad Wallach residents are okay with using a small portion of the alley for the parking and loading. At this point, the developer's latest plans include the 13th Street curb cut, and DDOT, HPO, and advocates should oppose it.

Development

Taking creative liberties with the Dupont ANC's votes

by David Alpert   •   November 3, 2008 9:43 am

The Dupont ANC sent its letter to the Board of Zoning Adjustment weighing in on the residential and retail development proposal at 14th and U that the BZA will consider Wednesday. That's the customary process when the ANC has passed a resolution concerning an upcoming hearing. But there's just one problem: the letter, signed by Chairman Ramon Estrada and sent by ANC staff member Freddie Blicher, doesn't actually precisely reflect the Commission's vote last month.

To make a very long story short, the developers are seeking four variances. The ANC considered them one at a time at its October meeting, and voted on each separately. On three, they voted unanimously to support; on one, as I reported here, they voted 5-3 to "not support" the variance.

The letter, however, presents things slightly differently:

With eight of nine Commissioners in attendance, a quorum at a duly-noticed public meeting, the Commission approved the following three-part motion by a vote of 5-3:

1. The ANC hereby approves the area variance requests as presented for the project (a) Lot Occupancy .... (b) Required Public Space ... (c) ARTS Prohibition of Driveways ...

2. The ANC hereby opposes ... the request for area variance for (a) Rear Yard ... because ... [detailed legal rationale here]

3. The ANC reserves the right to comment on any changes or revisions to the plans and/or BZA application ... and grants the Commissioner of Single Member District 2B09 [Estrada] ... full authority to take all needed action on this project going forward, including negotiations with the owner and preparing testimony before regulatory boards, and any other action required...

No three-part motion was ever introduced. The Commissioners voted on each variance separately, and never all together.

Also, most of this language was never read at the meeting. Estrada's motion on the rear yard variance, as introduced, was to "not support" rather than "oppose". The part about granting authority came up, but in only a general discussion, not as the specific language in the letter. Based on my recollection, that portion concerned only the BZA hearing, not all "regulatory boards and any other action required." Finally, the legal rationale for disapproving the rear yard variance summarizes some reasons which were brought up at the meeting, but this level of detail was never part of the actual motion.

Does this matter? After all, if a motion had been introduced comprising all four variances and the part about granting authority, it's fair to say it probably would have passed 5-3; the three who voted against disapproving the rear yard variance would probably have voted no, and the rest yes. But that's not what happened. This letter suggests that ANC opinion was divided on the entire question. In fact, it was united on three of four variances. That misrepresents the sentiment of the ANC to the BZA.

This isn't the first time the ANC's letters don't quite match the discussion at the meetings. The previous month, when the developer was preparing to go before the Historic Preservation Review Board for a trivial modification, Estrada introduced a resolution reiterating the ANC's previous position that the project was too large. As I wrote then, Commissioner Jack Jacobson introduced an amendment saying that, based on the developer's changes over time to accommodate the community and the HPRB, the ANC supports moving the project forward as presented.

Estrada decided to accept Jacobson's amendment as friendly (most likely because of the clear sentiment in the room in favor), and the amended motion passed unanimously. Later, however, no language matching the amendment appeared in the official letter to HPRB. As with this month's, that letter contains detailed language in the motion, none of which was actually read at the meeting. Jacobson said, "The way the letter was written, I wouldn't have voted for it." While the letter makes it seem that all Commissioners agree with the language written there, that's not true.

Estrada has made it clear he doesn't want the 14th and U project to move forward as currently proposed. He's introduced repeated resolutions calling for a smaller project and more setbacks. That's his right, of course, as the duly elected representative of his district. Estrada has effectively advocated for his point of view, and helped reduce the original project's size and mass. But whatever the Chair's personal feelings, an ANC's official letter must reflect the ANC's actual vote, not a slight variant that shades the actual language toward the chair's position.

The burden isn't Estrada's alone. Other ANC commissioners should insist on clearly defined motions, so that they know exactly what they are voting on. When members vote based on some back-and-forth discussion and allow the staff and Chair to craft a motion later, it opens the door to these shifts. When I attended the Adams Morgan ANC, for example, Commissioners brought detailed motions already written out, and any amendments had to be similarly specific. The Dupont ANC follows Robert's Rules of Order at their meetings. They should likewise take seriously their position as a real elected body voting on real motions, and ask for actual language before they take a vote.

Development

Better Know a Single-Member District: 2B09

by David Alpert   •   October 24, 2008 3:02 pm

Calling this "the fightin' 2B09" is a more genuinely apt mantra in this Single-Member District than in many others. The violent riots of 1968 still leave their mark on DC's traditionally African-American commercial corridors such as 14th Street, 7th Street, and H Street. They are still recovering from the destruction, closed businesses, and subsequent population loss.

Today, most of these corridors are alive with new development and its consequent controversy, leading to fights of words instead of rocks, but still very passionate. Today's Better Know a SMD looks at the archetypal revitalizing commercial corner and the spot where the 1968 riots began: 14th and U.

Observers point to two events as cornerstones of 14th and U's transformation into the lively housing, restaurant, and entertainment district it is today: the opening of the Reeves Center in 1986, and the first service at the U Street Metro station in 1991. Some dispute the influence of the Reeves Center, but none disagree that Metro has fueled a powerful resurgence.

The area has many new condo buildings (like Langston Lofts and the Ellington) to the north and east of 14th and U, and multiple restaurants and bars (such as Saint-Ex and Bar Pilar) on the east side of 14th south of U. 14th's the west side, however, has been slower to develop, still sporting a McDonald's, several other fast food restaurants, a parking lot, and several vacant buildings at 14th and T.

That southwest corner is the very edge of the Dupont Circle ANC and SMD 2B09, while the other three corners of 14th and U are all part of ANC 1B. Critics of 2B09's commissioner and 2B's current chair, Ramon Estrada, say the imbalance between the more vibrant eastern side and 2B09's western side comes from Estrada's opposition to projects in his district, compared to more business-friendly positions from ANC 1B.

Estrada insists he supports development and businesses in his district. "I would like to see 14th and U commercial corridors revived with vibrant live/work/shop/dine/arts-rich establishments," he said, "including galleries, theatres, and more museums about the cultural history of U Street. This vision is currently taking shape and, if financing continues to be available, the remaining remnants of the destruction from the 1968 riots will be seen only in photographs." Still, Estrada has been a constant opponent of the scale of proposed development at 14th and U, advocating for 7 stories instead of 10 at the tallest point. I've criticized that stance throughout, and in recent months, several of Dupont's ANC commissioners have spoken up to oppose Estrada's push for further reductions.

Doug Rogers decided to run against Estrada because he believes most neighbors don't share Estrada's positions on development and retail. "I really want this district to have first-rate residential, retail, and transportation," he said. "The west side of 14th is empty, with vacant lots and vacant warehouses, but if you look across 14th Street to the east side, it's full of life. It has diverse, mixed retail along that space between S and U and a lot of vitality. Meanwhile, the west side is dead."

Development

Historic review chickens and BZA eggs at 14th and U

by David Alpert   •   October 10, 2008 2:47 pm

When a developer presents a plan to build in a historic district, they first go through the historic preservation process, where Historic Preservation Office (HPO) staff work with the developer to shape and, sometimes, cut back parts of the project to fit in with the historic district. Once that is approved, if the project requires any zoning variances, they present the project to the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). Finally, if the project will use public space, DDOT rules on that.

The Hill Rag reports that northeast Capitol Hill's ANC, 6A, thinks that process is backwards. "How can HPRB rule on design issues when BZA hasn't ruled on how much space you can occupy and for what uses, and how can BZA decided how much space you can use without talking to Public Space?" asked Commissioner Nicholas Alberti. According to the article, other cities put zoning approval first.

Whichever way we do it, developers hit chicken-and-egg situations. At the "Utopia" project planned for 14th and U, HPO asked the developer to change several elements which created needs for zoning variances. The current rules require a 15-foot "rear yard" which has to span the entire width of the lot. But on a corner lot, there's no "rear", so one edge of the lot has to get the open space. Inevitably, it will therefore touch one of the sidewalks, creating a gap in the buildings.

Parking

DDOT anti-curb cut regulation important but needs flexibility

by David Alpert   •   October 8, 2008 12:44 pm

DDOT has proposed new regulations to limit curb cuts. As we've discussed before, garage entrances that face the street and cut across sidewalks have a profoundly damaging effect on walkable urbanism. They make the street feel much more vehicle-centric, the cars crossing the sidewalk add opportunities for crashes, and by taking away on-street parking, they widen the street, leading cars to drive faster.

According to DDOT's proposed regulation, they will not approve any new curb cuts, or allow existing ones to remain if a building is renovated, if the parking could be accessed from an alley instead of from the street. (There's a typo in the draft which makes it sound like the opposite, but that's what they mean). Under this policy, buildings without alleys could still end up with front entrances, like this; however, under the proposed off-street parking zoning rules, buildings without alleys wouldn't have any requirement to build parking. They still might, and could get a curb cut, but the policy is a big improvement over the current situation.

It's very important to have a regulation like this. Right now, DDOT often opposes curb cuts, as with the drive-thru Walgreens, but that's dependent on having a good ward planner with the time and awareness to get involved. This policy would standardize curb cut criteria.

Under this policy, there are only two exceptions: first, if "there is no alternative way to access on-site parking or a loading dock" via the alley, and second, in the event of special needs due to a disability. You might be surprised, but I actually think DDOT ought to have a little bit more flexibility.

Some blocks do have alleys, but alleys unsuited to heavy traffic volume. In some downtown blocks, the garages see a lot of car traffic in and out, while the alleys are narrow and provide insufficient room for cars and trucks to maneuver. Plus, any traffic in and out of an alley crosses the curb, just as it does on a curb cut. The only advantage of the alley is that we consolidate the pedestrian conflicts into a single area.

If we're building new blocks, then all parking absolutely should go through the alley. If we're substantially renovating most of a block and changing alleys around, as big downtown development projects often do, they they should leave enough space behind the buildings to handle the parking traffic. And for a small residential building with low traffic volume, we should absolutely use the alleys.

But there may be some situations where an alley exists and using it is possible, but undesirable. DDOT needs the flexibility to grant an exeption in these rare cases. One example is the 14th and U project, which backs onto the Treto Way alley between T and U just west of 14th Street.

Development

Tenant abuse among several controversies at the Dupont ANC

by David Alpert   •   September 11, 2008 11:42 am

At the first few meetings of the Dupont Circle ANC I attended, the Commission voted unanimously on almost every issue. I criticized the appearance, if not also the reality, that Commissioners were voting on important resolutions without much discussion, or going along to vote for resolutions even when some privately told me they disagreed.

That's certainly changed. Last night, ANC Commissioners spoke up to debate at least three issues: tenant abuse at 1433 T St, the proposed development at 14th and U, and staffing at Francis School. Commissioner Jack Jacobson (2B04, between 15th and 17th from Q to S) has a detailed recap of the meeting's issues.

At 1433 T, the developer and architect presented plans to renovate an existing apartment building. They want to partly fill in light courts on each side and add another story onto an addition in the very rear of the building. The Historic Preservation Office and the Dupont Circle Conservancy feel that this is compatible with the historic fabric of the neighborhood (as do I), but there is another problem: tenants and tenant advocates allege that owners of this building illegally forced out residents in one of Dupont's few rent controlled buildings, for the purpose of renovating it into market-rate apartments.

The Council held a hearing on the topic in 2006, at which DCRA testified that the safety issues claimed by the landlord shouldn't actually require tenants to vacate the building. I don't know all the subsequent steps, but the head of the tenants' association claims that the landlord is taking steps to force out tenants and "most have left due these actions and continuously deteriorating building conditions."

Ultimately, any alleged misbehavior can't factor into HPRB's decision, so the Office of the Tenant Advocate will have to pursue this issue through other approval channels (such as DCRA's granting of actual building permits).

Several Commissioners also spoke up in favor of the 14th and U project, in contrast to previous meetings. The proposal has been scaled back and "sculpted" through numerous rounds of historic review, and is now much less massive than the original proposal. Some of the Commissioners pointed out that density at this corner (near a Metro stop) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan), and therefore amended the proposed resolution to approve this project moving ahead.

Development

Delay scuttles affordable housing at 14th and U

by David Alpert   •   July 28, 2008 4:07 pm

In 2005, the Zoning Commission adopted, and the DC Council approved, an inclusionary zoning law. It gave developers the right to build just a little higher in exchange for including affordable units in the development. Then-Ward 4 Councilmember Adrian Fenty strongly supported this law, and used it as part of his platform for Mayor.

Since winning the election, however, Fenty has stalled. It's now almost a year after the rules were supposed to go into effect. Observers think certain developers, big funders of Fenty's who have the ear of Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Neil Albert, are pushing to water down the rules.

The delay is creating consequences on the ground. The proposed 14th and U development, which will replacing a parking lot and several ugly mid-century fast-food restaurants, originally planned for inclusionary zoning. But with the delay, they've reworked the project. Architect Eric Colbert and developer Bob Moore presented new plans to the Dupont Circle ANC last month with the top two floors gone, some extra mass in the back to make up for it, and no affordable housing units.

As gentrification spreads through our city, there's a real danger that we'll become a city of all wealthy white people and young people who are willing to live in very little space. Manhattan has this problem—more and more, only the very wealthy and crowded-in young professionals can afford to live there, while each year more affordable housing turns into market-rate, high-rent luxury condos and apartments.

Our neighborhoods are better with a mix of ages, races, and income levels. We don't know how to ensure healthy neighborhoods, but inclusionary zoning is one small piece of the answer. Each new building built without affordable units while the Fenty administration drags its feet is another small step closer to an urban monoculture.

Development

Inclusionary zoning v. historic preservation?

by David Alpert   •   April 15, 2008 10:51 am

Will developers start getting pinched between inclusionary zoning and historic preservation, and the wishes of neighbors? Will some push to weaken one or the other? Do we need to do that, or is that just an argument meant to increase profits?

The proposed inclusionary zoning law requires some affordable housing (reducing the potential for profit), while also allowing some extra height (increasing the potential for profit). Meanwhile, residents don't want the extra height, and HPRB shrinks the sizes of floors to get buildings to fit with the historic neighborhood.

To build a building, a developer must get financing from big national investment funds which demand a certain return. Deliver it, and they'll finance the building; otherwise, no building. At last week's Dupont Circle ANC meeting, the developer of the 14th and U project claimed that HPRB's shrinking of the top two floors is threatening the ability of the project to get funded. Further, they could afford to do without the top two floors entirely (as many neighborhood activists want) if the inclusionary zoning rules didn't exist.

At the behest of developers, Mayor Fenty's administration is proposing to trim back the inclusionary zoning rules that were agreed upon by the Council but not yet implemented by the Mayor. The argument for weakening is that the IZ rules will cut profits too much and buildings just won't get built; the argument against is that developers may simply be looking for more profit at the expense of affordable housing.

This discussion led one observer at the meeting to speculate that historic areas might become exempt from IZ. That'd be dangerous (and a bad idea). Preservation already sometimes appears to be a tool of rich white neighborhoods to divert change away from their areas; any serious push by people in historic districts against IZ would seem like more of the same with a tinge of class warfare or racism. Other advocates might be excited about the pinch of IZ and historic preservation restrictions if it stops buildings in their neighborhoods that they don't want.

We have three competing interests: developers, preservationists, and housing advocates. Let's hope the final outcome effectively balances all three. We need to preserve historic areas, need new housing and stores throughout the city, and mustn't exclude the middle class and lower-income people who form the backbone of the city's workforce.