A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Delay on Zoning Hearing for Capitol Place PUD
Reposted from the comments:
Dreyfus has asked the Zoning Commission for an indefinite postponement of their July 31 Capitol Place PUD hearing. They say they are going back to the drawing board to respond to community concerns.
There were basically 3 types of community concerns. 1) It was far too massive for the square (9-10 stories in places on a square that as 2-3 story townhouses), 2) fear of damage and problems related to construction and 3) the design which fronted H Street was inspired by Station Place -- it was a pretty much a glass box. The architect seems receptive to making the facade on H better resemble the historic fabric of the street.
Has anybody posted a map of how much space we're talking about here? Is it just the empty lot/parking lot? Or is there more to it? Is there any requirement that the property would open onto the H Street bridge?
Although I think ultimately that medium to higher density residential is a good thing for this parcel, congratulations are in order to everyone who came out and commented on the issues with the initial design.
Also, it is great that most of the ANC Commissioners have consistently stood up to the developer, asking the tough questions. Together with community comment resulted in the postponement and pending redesign.
One thing that would still be great would be if the developer would agree to sell the buildings that date back to the 1800s so that they could be moved to fill in empty lots in the neighborhood. I've suggested this to other developers (e.g., Cohen) and been turned down--on the basis that the neighborhood would not support it--which is contrary to what I've heard from anyone who has expressed an opinion on the idea.
As a final thought, I (and others) continue to argue that it is simply false to say that "any development is better than no development". Our neighborhood deserves a quality balance between thoughtful new development and protection of the existing fabric of the neighborhood. The ANC is under NO obligation to approve any PUD projects--and it is great that most of the Commissioners are taking the stand that development needs to make sense for the neighborhood and has to provide concrete benefits (and amenities if a PUD is requested).
Alan, as you know I raise the issue of moving buildings all the time.
SPEAKING OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES, this should be demanded within the negotiation process and required as one of the final conditions of the ZONING ORDER.
F*** Cohen. The same thing should have happened there. But the PUD process encourages demolition before final orders are handed down.
F*** Cohen/2. One of the things he said is that the owner of the property he finally bought, a great example of a Victorian brick rowhouse from the late 1890s probably, demanded the house be torn down as a condition of the sale.
I THINK THIS IS B.S. I thought that it is "illegal" to make contract conditions counter to public policy. It should be considered as a matter of course that demolition of sound housing is counter to public policy.
Again, in the final Zoning Order, this building should have been moved, at the developers expense.
AGAIN, this gets back towards another thing I have been raising. That communities need to make their own neighborhood plans, and identify parcels at risk, as well as opportunities.
There aren't that many vacant lots, but there are some, where these buildings could be accommodated. And there are plenty of vacant parcels in Trinidad and Ivy City where the buildings could go as well.
Would this even be cost-effective. I like these rowhouses but are they really so unique that the expense of trying to move one of them to a vacant lot would even be worth it. Is there anything historic or otherwise remarkable about these structures other than their age. Were they designed by a famous architect? If we impose too many restrictions, we stifle growth and wind up with H Street just the way it is and has been for the last twenty years.
Do I want a featureless glass box on H Street? No. But I am not going to insist that someone try to move an old rowhouse which has most likely lain abandoned for the better part of two or three decades a condition of development in the area.
Also, would it even be possible to move the structure? As we've seen from the collapse on Morse Street when they dug the foundation too close to the rowhouse, these structures are not all that strong.
Not to sound needy or whiny, but would it be possible for our wonderful blog-hostess to take some of her lovely photographs of the relevant structures so we could all see just how pretty (or not pretty) they are?
Earlier I asked whether the buildigng would face the bridge. Another commenter replied with, "probably open out to the 300 block of H St. or so we hope."
Why is it better to face Third Street than the bridge? Third might need to be the main entrance, but it would be nice if there was some pedestrian access to the bridge.
Re bridge access: this is one issue on which Dreyfus has already, to its credit, responded to community input. The most recent proposal included a pedestrian stairway providing access from the H St viaduct. (This isn't a simple matter, either. DDOT doesn't want anything rigidly attached to the bridge, so the stairs have to be built as a separate structure with a joint at the contact point.) Sean Cahill of Dreyfus talked about this issue at last week's ANC zoning committee presentation.
Over the past couple of decades H Street has had few restrictions, aside from low expectations. Even now, there is no design review (except for bigger projects like Capitol Place that require a PUD).
As a result, what H St gets in new buildings is pretty sorry:
AutoZone H St CDC Headquarters H St Connection The Blimpie-plex Govt buildings on 600 block
If anything, H Street at least needs some form of design review in addition to the overlay requirements.
Richard, re: my inquiry to Cohen regarding moving the very-intact house at 1030 3rd...
I spoke directly with Mr. Cohen, and he mentioned nothing of this purported agreement with the seller to definitely knock down the house. The only things he indicated as the reasons were that (1) it was a hassle and would delay his project (note: no progress in the 60 days since I offered to buy & move), (2) he had already signed a contract with the demolition company so selling with condition of moving wouldn't save him any money, and (3) the community would be opposed.
Definitely agree that there are plenty of single & multiple empty lots--for this purpose, I was including Trinidad & Ivy City in my use of "neighborhood".
Anonymous, I've done a fair amount of research and made several inquiries with building movers, and it appears that even for a brick building (heavier, so more expensive), moving & renovating would be financially viable--provided that the house to be moved is acquired for a rather minimal expense.
Justifications for a developer selling at a minimal price include that the developer is spared the time, hassle and expense of demolition, it preserves housing stock (and historical buildings), and creates a positive for the community. It could even be characterized as a community amenity (though minor) to a PUD package. Not sure, but it is possible that the developer could also take a tax deduction for the loss on the structurel... (?)
The houses are fairly nondescript. Some of them in fact are 1950s/60s office buildings (or look that way). The buildings on the East side of the block are typical 1890s rowhouses but the buildings on the Dreyfus site (the West side of the block) are more varied, and show their commercial use and have not generally been restored as have the neighboring residences. That is not to say it wouldn't be a nice idea to preserve some of them. But then, I'm sure we would have the same debates about simply preserving only the facades that crop up regarding downtown development.
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't been here long, all you need to know about the H St. CDC is captured in the second half of this 2002 Post article.
Instead of moving a building, relocate the building facade. They do it downtown all the time, build a moderen building and slap the old facade in front, keeping the neighborhood character
Oh yeah, we really need the good taste police on H street. Will that be a special committee on the CDC,the ANC or SPNA, CHRS or HSMS, or just Richard Layman? All of whom regard themselves as the "expert"on H street
No, we don't need the good taste police. But what we do need are sensible rules, instituted through public discussion, and enforced by a capable government.
Good neighborhoods don't just happen. They're created with expectations established in policy and inspirations provided by entrepreneurs.
Easy on Layman, people. If only 10% of the people who live around H Street had his passion, intelligence and drive H Street would be light years ahead of U Street. It's people like Layman that raise awareness and bring small victories to evolving communities.
The attacks on Richard aren't just vicious and unprovoked. They're also an attempt to reframe the debate in terms of personalities: "if you like Richard, then you hate all development on H St." People who set up these false dichotomies use personal attacks because they're incapable of engaging in -- let alone persuading anyone by means of -- a debate on the merits.
There are a few _key_ differences between me, and many of the people offering comments in this thread. My name, writings, and beliefs are out there. In print or digitally. Archived. Named. Reasoned. Argued.
My comments aren't anonymous, ever. I am not anonymous. I speak up at meetings. My picture is in my blog. Etc. (That by the way is a difference between me and my blog, and this one.)
My arguments are pretty consistent, and as I said, out and available. Had Wanda Stevens-Harris not summarily disposed of the anc6a listserv, you could look them all up. But certainly everything on public lists is available. And from time to time, I dig stuff out of the old hsms_board list etc.
My testimonies to City Council are in the public record, etc.
And except for a couple instances where I relied on the statements of others without checking them out. I stand by just about everything I've said and done since the summer of 2000.
Sure my thinking has changed and grown as I've learned. And it continues to grow. But the foundational principles, asset-based revitalization, building a local economy, authenticity, capacity building and citizen engagement, are the same.
I do make mistakes now and then, but in the great scheme of things, pretty rarely.
But that's because I research my ass off, which is a lot different from most of the people participating in blog forums like this and listservs, in the neighborhood or in the city.
Most people don't always agree with me, but I think most of the time, if you go back and look at what I've written, more than 95% of the time, I'm proven right.
It's a pretty good track record. And one that is increasingly recognized nationally, even if some of you, for god knows what reason, think I have my head up my ass.
Some examples would be useful, Marc's or Alan's or anonymous' comments withstanding. Which I thank you for.
And with regard to the house moving scenario. Obviously I'm not talking about the buildings built in the 1970s. Does that even need to be said? I am talking about the 9-11 clearly at least 100 year old buildings.
And you're missing the point in another way. The cost to move a building, if very local, would be less than $30,000, maybe as much as $50,000--far less than the $150-$300,000 it would cost to construct a new building.
There are a variety of other reasons as well. For example, read _Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed Connection_ by Donovan Rypkema.
Finally, re the person's comments about the CDC. (1) H St. Connection was done with DHCD support. (2) but really, all the projects you mention, which truly suck yes they do, resulted from the post-riot Urban Renewal Plan.
I've written a number of times that all the URP investments have had little substantive impact or generated spillover economic benefit in a manner that has influenced or shaped today's current resurgence.
![CapitolPlace[2]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sqYmzgdyMEoqTjz7eCg3xV_5Z-20uL0_KCe-KEf-WcsThiVBef9waXQwOENp9u7kt0Czg9lTfL_zVJfVSMeecdUfWx8FrkTADDuAR4T10ef224uff5z1k=s0-d)
26 comments:
What's the address for Capitol Place?
A large portion of Square 752, bounded by 2d/G/3d/H Sts NE.
There were basically 3 types of community concerns. 1) It was far too massive for the square (9-10 stories in places on a square that as 2-3 story townhouses), 2) fear of damage and problems related to construction and 3) the design which fronted H Street was inspired by Station Place -- it was a pretty much a glass box. The architect seems receptive to making the facade on H better resemble the historic fabric of the street.
Great. Thanks for the clarification.
Has anybody posted a map of how much space we're talking about here? Is it just the empty lot/parking lot? Or is there more to it? Is there any requirement that the property would open onto the H Street bridge?
i think it's at the foot of the bridge, so it will probably open out to the 300 block of H St. or so we hope.
The plan covers the parking lot and the entire west half of the block. They already own the property.
Although I think ultimately that medium to higher density residential is a good thing for this parcel, congratulations are in order to everyone who came out and commented on the issues with the initial design.
Also, it is great that most of the ANC Commissioners have consistently stood up to the developer, asking the tough questions. Together with community comment resulted in the postponement and pending redesign.
One thing that would still be great would be if the developer would agree to sell the buildings that date back to the 1800s so that they could be moved to fill in empty lots in the neighborhood. I've suggested this to other developers (e.g., Cohen) and been turned down--on the basis that the neighborhood would not support it--which is contrary to what I've heard from anyone who has expressed an opinion on the idea.
As a final thought, I (and others) continue to argue that it is simply false to say that "any development is better than no development". Our neighborhood deserves a quality balance between thoughtful new development and protection of the existing fabric of the neighborhood. The ANC is under NO obligation to approve any PUD projects--and it is great that most of the Commissioners are taking the stand that development needs to make sense for the neighborhood and has to provide concrete benefits (and amenities if a PUD is requested).
Best,
Alan
Alan, as you know I raise the issue of moving buildings all the time.
SPEAKING OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES, this should be demanded within the negotiation process and required as one of the final conditions of the ZONING ORDER.
F*** Cohen. The same thing should have happened there. But the PUD process encourages demolition before final orders are handed down.
F*** Cohen/2. One of the things he said is that the owner of the property he finally bought, a great example of a Victorian brick rowhouse from the late 1890s probably, demanded the house be torn down as a condition of the sale.
I THINK THIS IS B.S. I thought that it is "illegal" to make contract conditions counter to public policy. It should be considered as a matter of course that demolition of sound housing is counter to public policy.
Again, in the final Zoning Order, this building should have been moved, at the developers expense.
AGAIN, this gets back towards another thing I have been raising. That communities need to make their own neighborhood plans, and identify parcels at risk, as well as opportunities.
There aren't that many vacant lots, but there are some, where these buildings could be accommodated. And there are plenty of vacant parcels in Trinidad and Ivy City where the buildings could go as well.
Would this even be cost-effective. I like these rowhouses but are they really so unique that the expense of trying to move one of them to a vacant lot would even be worth it. Is there anything historic or otherwise remarkable about these structures other than their age. Were they designed by a famous architect? If we impose too many restrictions, we stifle growth and wind up with H Street just the way it is and has been for the last twenty years.
Do I want a featureless glass box on H Street? No. But I am not going to insist that someone try to move an old rowhouse which has most likely lain abandoned for the better part of two or three decades a condition of development in the area.
Also, would it even be possible to move the structure? As we've seen from the collapse on Morse Street when they dug the foundation too close to the rowhouse, these structures are not all that strong.
Not to sound needy or whiny, but would it be possible for our wonderful blog-hostess to take some of her lovely photographs of the relevant structures so we could all see just how pretty (or not pretty) they are?
Earlier I asked whether the buildigng would face the bridge. Another commenter replied with, "probably open out to the 300 block of H St. or so we hope."
Why is it better to face Third Street than the bridge? Third might need to be the main entrance, but it would be nice if there was some pedestrian access to the bridge.
Re bridge access: this is one issue on which Dreyfus has already, to its credit, responded to community input. The most recent proposal included a pedestrian stairway providing access from the H St viaduct. (This isn't a simple matter, either. DDOT doesn't want anything rigidly attached to the bridge, so the stairs have to be built as a separate structure with a joint at the contact point.) Sean Cahill of Dreyfus talked about this issue at last week's ANC zoning committee presentation.
Over the past couple of decades H Street has had few restrictions, aside from low expectations. Even now, there is no design review (except for bigger projects like Capitol Place that require a PUD).
As a result, what H St gets in new buildings is pretty sorry:
AutoZone
H St CDC Headquarters
H St Connection
The Blimpie-plex
Govt buildings on 600 block
If anything, H Street at least needs some form of design review in addition to the overlay requirements.
Richard, re: my inquiry to Cohen regarding moving the very-intact house at 1030 3rd...
I spoke directly with Mr. Cohen, and he mentioned nothing of this purported agreement with the seller to definitely knock down the house. The only things he indicated as the reasons were that (1) it was a hassle and would delay his project (note: no progress in the 60 days since I offered to buy & move), (2) he had already signed a contract with the demolition company so selling with condition of moving wouldn't save him any money, and (3) the community would be opposed.
Definitely agree that there are plenty of single & multiple empty lots--for this purpose, I was including Trinidad & Ivy City in my use of "neighborhood".
Anonymous, I've done a fair amount of research and made several inquiries with building movers, and it appears that even for a brick building (heavier, so more expensive), moving & renovating would be financially viable--provided that the house to be moved is acquired for a rather minimal expense.
Justifications for a developer selling at a minimal price include that the developer is spared the time, hassle and expense of demolition, it preserves housing stock (and historical buildings), and creates a positive for the community. It could even be characterized as a community amenity (though minor) to a PUD package. Not sure, but it is possible that the developer could also take a tax deduction for the loss on the structurel... (?)
Cheers,
Alan
Was the H STreet CDC involved in all the bad buildings listed above?
AutoZone - Yes
H St CDC HQ - Yes
H St Connection - ?
Blimpie - Yes
Govt buildings on 600 block
- Yes
If you guessed the H Street CDC, YOU ARE CORRECT!
The houses are fairly nondescript. Some of them in fact are 1950s/60s office buildings (or look that way). The buildings on the East side of the block are typical 1890s rowhouses but the buildings on the Dreyfus site (the West side of the block) are more varied, and show their commercial use and have not generally been restored as have the neighboring residences. That is not to say it wouldn't be a nice idea to preserve some of them. But then, I'm sure we would have the same debates about simply preserving only the facades that crop up regarding downtown development.
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't been here long, all you need to know about the H St. CDC is captured in the second half of this 2002 Post article.
Instead of moving a building, relocate the building facade. They do it downtown all the time, build a moderen building and slap the old facade in front, keeping the neighborhood character
Oh yeah, we really need the good taste police on H street. Will that be a special committee on the CDC,the ANC or SPNA, CHRS or HSMS, or just Richard Layman? All of whom regard themselves as the "expert"on H street
I say we just have the oracle named Layman run the whole damn thing because he obviously knows everything in the world especially about business.
No, we don't need the good taste police. But what we do need are sensible rules, instituted through public discussion, and enforced by a capable government.
Good neighborhoods don't just happen. They're created with expectations established in policy and inspirations provided by entrepreneurs.
Easy on Layman, people. If only 10% of the people who live around H Street had his passion, intelligence and drive H Street would be light years ahead of U Street. It's people like Layman that raise awareness and bring small victories to evolving communities.
taht still means he has his head up his own ass
The attacks on Richard aren't just vicious and unprovoked. They're also an attempt to reframe the debate in terms of personalities: "if you like Richard, then you hate all development on H St." People who set up these false dichotomies use personal attacks because they're incapable of engaging in -- let alone persuading anyone by means of -- a debate on the merits.
Whatever.
There are a few _key_ differences between me, and many of the people offering comments in this thread. My name, writings, and beliefs are out there. In print or digitally. Archived. Named. Reasoned. Argued.
My comments aren't anonymous, ever. I am not anonymous. I speak up at meetings. My picture is in my blog. Etc. (That by the way is a difference between me and my blog, and this one.)
My arguments are pretty consistent, and as I said, out and available. Had Wanda Stevens-Harris not summarily disposed of the anc6a listserv, you could look them all up. But certainly everything on public lists is available. And from time to time, I dig stuff out of the old hsms_board list etc.
My testimonies to City Council are in the public record, etc.
And except for a couple instances where I relied on the statements of others without checking them out. I stand by just about everything I've said and done since the summer of 2000.
Sure my thinking has changed and grown as I've learned. And it continues to grow. But the foundational principles, asset-based revitalization, building a local economy, authenticity, capacity building and citizen engagement, are the same.
I do make mistakes now and then, but in the great scheme of things, pretty rarely.
But that's because I research my ass off, which is a lot different from most of the people participating in blog forums like this and listservs, in the neighborhood or in the city.
Most people don't always agree with me, but I think most of the time, if you go back and look at what I've written, more than 95% of the time, I'm proven right.
It's a pretty good track record. And one that is increasingly recognized nationally, even if some of you, for god knows what reason, think I have my head up my ass.
Some examples would be useful, Marc's or Alan's or anonymous' comments withstanding. Which I thank you for.
And with regard to the house moving scenario. Obviously I'm not talking about the buildings built in the 1970s. Does that even need to be said? I am talking about the 9-11 clearly at least 100 year old buildings.
And you're missing the point in another way. The cost to move a building, if very local, would be less than $30,000, maybe as much as $50,000--far less than the $150-$300,000 it would cost to construct a new building.
There are a variety of other reasons as well. For example, read _Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed Connection_ by Donovan Rypkema.
Finally, re the person's comments about the CDC. (1) H St. Connection was done with DHCD support. (2) but really, all the projects you mention, which truly suck yes they do, resulted from the post-riot Urban Renewal Plan.
I've written a number of times that all the URP investments have had little substantive impact or generated spillover economic benefit in a manner that has influenced or shaped today's current resurgence.
Tell us how you really feel.
Post a Comment