Land Use

One of the funny things about the District is that it only recently became the heart of a very big city. For this reason, neighborhoods in Washington change over very rapidly from mixed-use high rises, to single-family attached housing, to suburban style detached homes on big yards. In the space of two miles you go from Manhattan to Westchester County, more or less. This is one reason development battles tend to be ugly in the District. Planners are trying to upzone what should be very urban land, but which is surrounded by what looks and feels like suburbia. Of course, some places feel more like suburbia than others:

As work proceeds on 46 custom homes in the Palisades, at least some new home buyers are paying nearly $2m for a development of custom-built, embassy-sized homes in Northwest Washington DC. The Phillips Park development – overseen by international businessmen William Pryor and Felipe Paraud – will be delivering 46 “estate homes” with sprawling 9,000 to 17,000 square foot lots near the intersection of Foxhall Road and W Street, NW over the course of the next year.

Proof positive that not everyone is suffering, twenty-two of the available lots are already under contract, according to the real estate agent representing the project, Long and Foster’s Susie Maguire. The custom-built homes themselves will measure in at 4,500 to 9,000 s.f. and sport designs from variety of architectural firms, including Barnes Vanze, David Jones, Muse and Neumann Lewis Buchanan. Priced from $1.5m, the homes began sales a little more than two years ago…

It’s worth heading over to Google Maps to have a look at the intersection of Foxhall and W. It’s less than three miles from the heart of K Street and less than two from the high rises of Rosslyn, and yet it looks like something transplanted from Loudoun County, some 20 miles to the west. Now I realize that adding significant new density in this area is impossible — attempts to do so would touch off the NIMBY battle to end all NIMBY battles — but are 17,000 square foot lots really necessary? I tell you, I am frustrated to no end by Brooklanders fighting against density, but things like this almost make me empathize with them. While the city is telling folks around my neighborhood that new density is necessary to grow the tax base and accommodate growth — and I agree — it’s willing to tolerate 17,000 square foot estates across town. That’s very difficult to understand.

Comments

  1. Doug says:

    Combined, though, that’s what? 12 acres? And I wonder if the development isn’t denser and greener than it sounds. If you consider that in houses that size, people not only live there but work there, might it not be more efficient to have workers coming to mansions in the city to dust chandeliers and render paté rather than heading out to the suburbs? It might even offset the extensiveness of the residential aspect.

  2. Chris says:

    Out of curiosity, is it zoned for single-family or multi-family (which usually includes the right to build single family)?

  3. ryan says:

    It’s zoned as follows:

    Permits matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses for detached dwellings with a minimum lot width of 75 feet, a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet, a maximum lot occupancy of 40% for residential use and 60% for church and public school use, and a maximum height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.

  4. ryan says:

    Actually, I take that back. It looks like it’s covered by a PUD.

  5. Chris says:

    You don’t usually see developers go less dense in expensive markets since most of the value is in the lot rather than the land.

  6. rdg says:

    that area doesn’t work for density

    so filling it with mega-rich people will be a nice way of expanding the tax base

  7. Reid says:

    Does it piss you off even more to remember that that land was given to the city to build a mayoral mansion, but since it wasn’t PC to have the mayor living in Foxhall, they refused the gift? (It went to the Red Cross instead, who promptly sold it. Hence the development…)

  8. Cavan says:

    too funny.

    It was questions like these that got me into being a transit/land use advocate. Why should we waste any more land on McMansions? Just silly.

  9. Mixner says:

    Building the kind of housing that people want and are willing to pay for is neither a “waste” nor “silly.” Land-use and transportation patterns are products of the market and the democratic process. The fundamental reason why we have so little transit and compact development, and so many roads and cars and low-density suburbs is because that’s what people want.

    Most of the criticism of our existing land-use and transportation patterns by proponents of “new urbanism” boils down to frustration at the fact that most Americans simply don’t want to live the way new urbanists want them to live.

  10. monkeyrotica says:

    Foxhall is a really beautiful part of DC. I can see why the millionaire pinkos would want such sprawling, bucolic, gated hellscapes to keep their trophy wives. Just don’t try walking anywhere. They’ll call the cops on you for “suspicious activity.” Nobody walks in Foxhall.

    Mixner nailed it. What you have with the Foxhall/Penn Quarter dichotomy is also being played out in the suburbs: some are dense (Arlington) some are sprawling (everywhere else). Those are the choices people want. It’s just in Foxhall’s case, these f**kers are richer than rich. They make the Chevy Chase Country Club crowd look positively ghetto.

  11. Paul says:

    I really don’t see any parallel to Brookland here. The Brookland Small area plan is immediately around the metro. This Palisades land is miles from metro.

  12. DG-rad says:

    these are certified mansions.. not McMansions.

  13. js says:

    to Monkeyrotica and Mixner- that’s a very naive and incorrect assertion. These things are not subject to pure market supply and demand, and thus can’t be dismissed as such. The very fact of having been “zoned” in the first place is de facto goverment intervention in the “free market”. you can’t build a store there (even if there’s a “market” of people who want to use the land for retail). You can’t build your house higher than 3 stories (even if there’s a “market” for taller houses).

  14. Mixner says:

    No product or service is subject to “pure” market supply and demand. And laws that regulate the housing and transportation markets, such as local zoning ordinances, are outcomes of the democratic process and are therefore broadly representative of the public will. For decade after decade, all across the country, Americans have been suburbanizing and shifting from public transportation to private autos. If these trends are fundamentally inconsistent with the preferences of the American people about where to live and how to get around, how have they managed to persist for so long, and in so many places? Why have the same trends been occurring in Europe, too?

  15. Chris says:

    “And laws that regulate the housing and transportation markets, such as local zoning ordinances, are outcomes of the democratic process . . . ”

    So are laws providing for transit.

  16. Mixner says:

    Yes, of course. And your point is…?