Another comment about accommodating density in DC

A couple days ago, I wrote this, as part of the same thread:

In my opinion, the best place to accommodate density is in our commercial areas, such as H Street NE or Benning Road NE, and in areas around WMATA stations. That being said, not every spot on every block of every commercial district or every bit of land around a subway station can in fact accommodate or should accommodate density.

The 14th and U Street corridors are full of good examples of such accommodation. There is extant transit infrastructure, which discourages driving, and the "arterial" nature of the streets accommodates more travel and taller buildings.

Certainly, the air above places like Hechinger Mall or the godawful strip shopping center at 8th and H Streets NE have plenty of redevelopment potential--the kind that is being executed first in higher demand areas. Or think of those wasted parking lots on the north side of the RFK stadium complex.

I am sure that all of us have examples of where density can be accommodated in a manner that strengthens the street fabric and urban, not suburban, form. I always always rail against the missed opportunity of the Brentwood Shopping Center. What a waste of city money and space.

But adding density is rarely a justifiable reason to obviate historic preservation laws. In fact, Mayor Williams' Administration attempted to use the justification of the desire to add 100,000 new residents to justify a special merit finding in at least one case, I seem to recall.

And the city and WMATA aren't doing a very good job of making the case for density, in an almost surgical fashion.While I am a strong proponent of compact development (for what it's worth, I hate the term "smart growth"), I am a strong if not stronger proponent of historic preservation, and I think that smart growthers generally are not fully conversant with the factors that comprise DC's competitive advantages--among which are historic architecture, urban design and walkability, and authenticity and history.

It looks as if we will have continued battles with the smart growth types about these issues. I am not looking forward to this. The smart growth types, funded as they are by the development industry, have more resources in terms of money and people.