Posted tagged ‘historic landmarks’

Proposals to Develop Hebrew Home Presented to Community

May 26, 2017

On Thursday evening, May 25th, DMPED hosted a meeting at Raymond Recreation Center so that the seven most promising development teams could present their ideas to the community on their ideas to renovate the old Hebrew Home property. All teams presented idea to convert the historic structure into housing and construct new housing to the east. However, no two presentations were exactly alike, with key differences being the number of units proposed, the amount of affordability of those units, and the density of the buildings.

A chief concern voiced by many residents was the impact that the development would have on area parking. There were also differing opinions on how much housing should be affordable, and how much density or height the new construction should be for the right balance.

The Powerpoint presentations from the meeting are available online here. Members of the public are invited to review them and provide any comments through an online forum available here: https://goo.gl/frtYFa  The forum will close on June 9th.

Below is a brief recap of each of the proposals with key data:

Team #1: Victory Housing & Brinshore Development

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 187  units

  • 88 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (100% affordable) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 91 new construction units (60 affordable, 31 market rate) (1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units)
  • 8 new townhouses for home-ownership opportunities

Parking spaces provided: 75

Comments: More information is needed on levels of affordability. Powerpoint available here.

Team #2: Bozzuto & The Menkiti Group

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: No

Housing proposed: Total 146 units

  • 90 senior units (100% affordable)
  • 50 market townhouses
  • 6 affordable townhouses

Parking spaces provided: onsite for townhouse units

Comments: Would be the fastest to build as it would be a by-right project, but is also problematic as it has no affordable units outside of the senior units. Additionally, six of the rowhouses are planned on the site of the historic Hebrew Home which would require HPO and HPRB approval, which I find doubtful. Powerpoint available here.

Team #3: Mission First, Urban Matters, & Lock7

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 224 units

  • 86 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (81 affordable, 21% at less than 30% AMI) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 117 new construction apartment units (95 affordable, 24% at less than 30% AMI) (1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units)
  • 21 new condo units on 10th Street (2 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: underground.

Comments: This project would be completed in three phases, with the Hebrew Home building being the first phase. This proposal is the most sensitive of those that were presented with regards to the preservation and renovation of the Hebrew Home building, with a commitment to preserve/restore interior elements of the building as well. Of the projects that proposed more density, this proposal has good harmony and relationship to the historic structure. Powerpoint available here.

Team #4: CPDC & NVR

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 109 units

  • 77 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (100% affordable) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 32 new construction townhouses (4 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: contained in each new rowhouse.

Comments: This team proposed the least number of overall units for the site, with nearly all of the affordable units being for seniors in the Hebrew Home building. The rowhouses proposed reflect the rowhouse character of the surrounding neighborhood. Powerpoint available here.

Team #5: Borger Management & Spectrum Management

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 202  units

  • 30% of the units will be affordable
  • 15% of units will be set aside for families at 30% of AMI.

Parking spaces provided: 49 surface parking spaces.

Comments: This is a good architect and developer, but the number of affordable units is at the minimum amount required. There is no dedicated senior housing, and the current design isn’t as compatible or sensitive or compatible with the surrounding community as other high-density proposals. Powerpoint available here.

Team #6: NHP Foundation, Fivesquares, & The Warrenton Group

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 206 units

  • 131 apartments (95 affordable)
  • 75 condos (8 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: underground parking.

Comments: The density of this project was compatible with the existing Hebrew Home building. One of the merits of this proposal was how it focused on greenspace. The green roofs, landscaping, and particularly the deep set back on 10th Street which included a wide sidewalk and benches were features that should be incorporated into the final project regardless of who the developer is. Powerpoirnt available here.

Team #7: Gilbane Development & NHT-Enterprise

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 212  units

Hebrew Home building:

  • 71 affordable units for seniors and families, some of whom are formerly homeless
  • 41 deeply affordable units at 30% AMI

New mixed income building:

  • Mixed-income building with 10% of units affordable to families at 80% AMI
  • 9 for-sale townhomes

Parking spaces provided: underground

Comments: This was a good group who indicated a wiliness to create more affordable units if the District would be willing to provide additional financial support. It was the only proposal to include permanent supportive housing for residents formerly homeless, and the team demonstrated a record of other deeply affordable projects that they had completed. Powerpoint available here.

Efforts to Redevelop Hebrew Home Property Still Moving Along

February 10, 2017
The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

The District’s efforts to find a developer for the former Hebrew Home for the Aged at 1125 Spring Road are making progress. Two public meetings were held to solicit community input through the OurRFP process, one on April 9, 2016, and a follow up meeting on June 2, 2016. Following these meetings, the RFP was issued July 1, 2016.

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) received nine proposals from the following development teams in response to the RFP:

  • Borger Management and Spectrum Management
  • Gilbane Development Company and NHT-Enterprise
  • Duball and Bundy Development Corp.
  • Community Preservation and Development Corporation (CPDC) and NVR
  • Telesis Corp.
  • Mission First, UrbanMatters Development and Lock7 Development
  • NHP Foundation, Fivesquares Development, and Warrenton Group
  • Victory Housing and Brinshore Development
  • Bozzuto Homes and The Menkiti Group

The next step in the process will be for DMPED to coordinate with ANCs 1A and 4C, and the community, to review the concepts and garner comments on which proposals are considered most promising. This could happen withing the next few weeks with the ANCs considering formal positions at their March meetings.

Preservation Office’s New Online Application Maps Historic Development and Preservation of DC

November 29, 2016

I thought this was interesting, yesterday the Historic Preservation Office announced the launch of HistoryQuest DC, a GIS-based web map that provides historical data on approximately 127,000 extant buildings in Washington, D.C. The Office of Planning’s Web site provides the following description of the application:

The application, HistoryQuest DC, is an interactive GIS map that provides historical data on approximately 127,000 extant buildings in Washington, D.C.  The map offers several operational layers of information for the user including historic data on individual buildings, links to documentation on properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, information on historic residential subdivisions, and the identification and boundaries of the L’Enfant Plan, and the city’s Squares, and Wards. The featured layer in the map—the Historical Data on DC Buildings—provides information from a variety of sources on original dates of construction, architects, owners and builders of the city’s historic buildings.

The application also includes a Query tool that allows the user to analyze the historic data within a specified geographic area or city-wide.

This application has evolved out of the DC Historical Building Permits Database project and is still a work-in-progress. Anyone with additional information or knowledge about specific buildings that will enhance, enrich, or correct the map, please use the “Propose Data Change” on the banner at the top of the map, complete and submit the GeoForm.

By using the search box, anyone using the maps can quickly get to basic data on any property, including when a house was built and who the architect and builder were. The various layers also can generate some interesting maps. In addition to historic landmarks, the following maps show some examples of the maps that it generates.

history-quest-1(In looking at the map generally, it is easy to quickly get an idea of how old section of DC are. The older the building, the darker the color.)

history-quest-2(In exploring the various layers, one option is to show existing historic districts.)

history-quest-3(Another interesting feature, many of the original subdivisions have been recorded.)

Ward 1 Landmarks: The Cavalier — 3500 14th Street, NW

July 22, 2016

Cavelier

This imposing apartment building opened in 1927 as Hilltop Manor, an appropriate name given its topographic position, general prominence, and Renaissance Revival architecture. The building was one of a number of collaborations between architect Harvey H. Warwick and developer Morris Cafritz. It is a visual landmark in Columbia Heights in part because it immediately adjoins the public sidewalk, stands 90 feet tall at the roof peak, and occupies frontage along an entire block. The density of the development illustrates the rapid growth on major suburban thoroughfares in the post-World War I era, largely directed by the streetcar system and a new zoning ordinance. It was among the earliest cooperative apartments in the District of Columbia, a housing phenomenon that arose here in the 1920s, promising to give more control to resident owners and afford a high level of services by spreading costs among them. It was renamed ―The “Cavalier” only two years after opening.

(DC designation June 28, 2007; NR listing July 26, 2007)

Cavelier

In 2009 the Cavalier Apartments were renamed “Hubbard Place” in honor of community leader Leroy Hubbard, whose career was dedicated to rebuilding 14th Street after the civil disorders of 1968. The building is a nine story mid-rise with 230 apartments along with ground floor retail and office spaces. All 230 apartments are rent-assisted units.

Support for Affordable Housing, Dense Development, & Sustainability Outcome of Second Hebrew Home Meeting

June 3, 2016

More than 100 community members from both Ward 1 and Ward 4 attended the second OurRFP meeting on June 2nd and indicated strong preferences for the site to be developed with significant affordable housing, sustainable public spaces, and density maximized through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.

IMG_0625(DMPED’s Tsega Bekele addressing the community at the start of the meeting.)

The meeting began at Raymond Recreation Center with an introduction from Deputy Mayor Brian Kenner and included a few words from Ward 1 Councilmember Briannne Nadeau. Afterward, DMPED’s Tsega Bekele provided an overview of some of the priorities that came out of the first OurRFP meeting — such as support for affordable housing, housing for families and seniors, and units that are ADA accessible. Bekele also informed the group on some of the next steps in the process. These included issuing the formal RFP in late June, followed by a pre-response conference and developer submissions.

It was noted that some of the priorities expressed in either of the OurRFP meetings would have their own process and opportunities for community engagement outside of the RFP process. Examples mentioned were the BZA process should the development seek fewer parking spaces than required by Zoning, the Zoning process should the property be developed as a PUD, and a review by the Historic Preservation Review Board for elements that involve the historic Hebrew Home building.

After the presentation, community members were allowed to post dots on three boards to indicate their highest priorities. It is important to note that all of the options on the boards were considered priorities identified during the first meeting. Each resident was given six dots, two of each of the three colors, with which to vote.

IMG_0626(Neighbors visiting the three topic boards and placing stickers on their priorities at Raymond Recreation Center.)

The outcome of the voting broke down in the following ways.

Housing Priorities

The highest priorities identified were affordable housing and housing for seniors.

  • More than 30% of the units set aside as affordable housing — 47%
  • Additional units to target moderate income/workforce housing (50-80% AMI) — 5%
  • Opportunities for Homeownership — 10%
  • Family-sized units — 16%
  • Housing reserved for seniors — 18%
  • Accessible Units (for persons with disabilities) — 4%

Public Space & Sustainability

The highest priority identified was Sustainable public space

  • Active use (e.g. playground, splash park, dog park, educational programming) — 18%
  • Passive uses (e.g. green spae, community garden, benches) — 20%
  • Sustainable public space improvements (e.g. stormwater management, sustainable landscaping, permeable surfaces) — 38%
  • Active, engaged street (upgrades to 10th street exceeding DDOT standards, bike parking, benches) — 20%
  • Public art — 4%

Design and Density

The highest priorities identified were maximizing density and incorporating elements of the historic building into the design.

  • Density Maximized through a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) — 48%
  • Historic elements incorporated in the design — 30%
  • Modern/Contemporary style of design — 2%
  • Exceed green building requirements — 19%

In closing and reporting out the results of the exercise, Bekele noted that all of the items on the boards are considered priorities to some extent as they all came out of the first OurRFP workshop. The purpose of the exercise during the second workshop was to help DMPED rank the priorities based on the community’s input. This, in turn, will help DMPED to review the forthcoming RFP submissions and make decisions with the community priorities in mind.

Materials from the workshop will eventually be posted on the DMPED page devoted to 1125 Spring Road.

IMG_0630(DMPED’s Tsega Bekele sharing the results of the priority boards and closing the meeting.)

Efforts to Develop the Old Hebrew Home Property Moving Forward (Again)

March 29, 2016

On March 25th the old Hebrew Home property at 1125 was included in DMPED’s annual March Madness event. March Madness is DMPED’s pre-solicitation event to announce upcoming community development projects (see all the projects in this year’s event here).

Neighbors will be particularly interested in the announcement for 1125 Spring Road (see flyer below). Redeveloping the old Hebrew Home will not now be part of the Mayor’s OurRFP program, and a community meeting is scheduled for Saturday April 9th. This will be an important development for our community and I encourage everyone to attend.

1125 Spring Rd March Madness

Park View Field House Renovation Nearly Finished

August 7, 2015

This will probably be the final update on the Park View Field House at the recreation center before the project is completed. It is essentially completed now, and the majority of punch list items are expected to be completed by Wednesday, August 12, 2015, including removal of the temporary construction fence.

Below are photos of the (nearly) finished project.

Park View Field House

IMG_1158

IMG_1156

Park View rec center interior

IMG_1144


%d bloggers like this: