Amenity planning for urban mixed use districts: A dog park for Union Market?

Please clean up after your dog sign, 4th Street NE, Union Market, Washington, DC

One of my forthcoming DC entries is about how it turns out "I was a force for gentrification in the city," even though I never intended that to be the primary outcome.

20 years ago, working to "save Union Market," in which I was a key player but not the lead ("Musing about Union Market on the death of Paul Pascal"), I outlined a concept for a retail plan that would work with what the market was at the time, food sales mostly, with some non food wholesale businesses too.  (* For insight into the campaign to save the market, see the addendum.)

-- "Retail planning and the Florida Market"

Washington Post graphic.

An entry in 2009 made the point that mixing residents and food businesses was somewhat incompatible, that in such situations residents become advocates for reducing the business focus of the area.  

One of the concerns expressed about the New Town redevelopment plan imposed on the Florida Market District through DC City Council legislation is the fact that by putting residents and industrial uses in close proximity, you add all the elements necessary to create significant conflicts.

This happened when people moved into housing built on an old parking lot at the Capitol Hill Hospital on 7th Street and Massachusetts Avenue NE.  And elsewhere in many places.

-- "Putting industrial uses and residents in close proximity can be a problem"

Me leading a tour of the then "Florida Market" in 2008.  Flickr photo by Mr.TinDC.

Being there last week, I think so far there is a reasonable balance between remaining legacy businesses (a minority of the previous number), mixed with new very upscale food businesses and retail including (as opposed to how "back then" the more low income focus of the DC Farmers Market building), and the apartment buildings.

But it's not like I'm there all the time.  So I don't know.

Don't complain about trash and rats when you don't provide waste cans and street and sidewalk cleaning.  Back when old line DC politicos and business interests were pushing their very average shopping and entertainment center approach (think the failed project in Prince George's County that replaced the old Cap Centre Arena), they touted their project as a way to combat rats and trash ("Developer Peddles a New Vision for an Old Market," Washington Post).

What DC Farmers Msrket, now the Union Market building looked like in 2008.  Below 2026.

My response was, the city doesn't provide any waste cans or trash collection services.  If you want to deal with public space maintenance, deal with it.  It's still messy.  But there are trash cans now, and a lot of them.  Maybe not enough and they're probably not emptied enough, but it's way better than before.

Residential housing imposes different demands for public space management and the provision of amenities.  One of the things we never talked about was with the addition of large apartment buildings, even though they provide a lot of recreational amenities on site, there was probably a need to plan for additional amenities and public spaces.

It turns out, of course, that there is great academic research on the topic.  This journal article from Progress in Planning published long after the Florida Market battle, but its conclusions seem particularly apt, "The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability."

► Dense neighbourhoods are more likely to provide good access to services/facilities. 

► Dense neighbourhoods are more likely to provide poor access to quality green space. 

► Residents in denser neighbourhoods are more likely to report feeling unsafe. 

► Generally, less social interaction occurs in denser neighbourhoods.

The point isn't to take such conclusions for granted, but to address the defects/deficits in purposeful ways, building systems that make communities better as a routine outcome.

Dog park potential of this inadvertent corner pocket park on W. 25th Street in Ogden, Utah.

I know I missed this on the H Street plan in 2003.  We should have tried to create some pocket parks on the corridor using parking lots and other interstitial spaces..  

Same with the NoMA plan--I proposed doing one c. 2005 and one was done, but we didn't include much in the way of amenities if I remember correctly.  

The NoMA business improvement district, once it was created, made that a major focus ("NoMA revisited: business planning to develop community," "(In many places) Public improvement districts ought to be created as part of transit station development process: the east side of NoMA station as an example," 2016).

Was in Ogden yesterday and they--because they did so much damage with urban renewal--have a lot of these kinds of spaces in their downtown area.  But land being at a premium in DC, it's harder.

Placemaking as a necessary element of property development.  The best informed property developers recognize the importance of integrating amenities into developments.  Although my line about it they do it only to make money, and so will only invest in such so long as the marginal return, in terms of reduced vacancy of apartments and commercial spaces, with high retention rates.

-- "New trends in making offices attractive: high quality amenities | Downtown place values" (2025)

-- "How Gabriel Chipperfield beautified Bayswater," Financial Times (use archive.ph for access)

-- "ULI report: The Case for Open Space Why the Real Estate Industry Should Invest in Parks and Open Spaces" (2024)

-- "As office-centric downtowns struggle, suburbs cater to the laptop crowd," Washington Post

From the FT article:

Placemaking is nothing new. The idea of designing urban space for humans rather than cars took hold in the 1960s, and the term describing the process of creating buzzy, people-centric districts gained traction in the ’70s. What used to be the domain of urban planners, however, is now deemed an essential strategy in property development. It’s no longer good enough to fill a building with people, you need to curate a vibe around it. 

This, of course, has less to do with civic duty than the eventual payoff: it is much easier to fill developments in pleasant surroundings where shops, restaurants, schools and creative spaces are on the doorstep. Not all get it right: the development of London’s Elephant and Castle has led to heavy criticism of extreme gentrification and placing profit over people. King’s Cross, meanwhile, with its glass-encased offices, dining destinations and art college, Central Saint Martins, is widely viewed as a success story.

Chipperfield is thankful for a private equity partner who agreed to sink “a couple of million” into retail ideas that “might not make money”. In reality, the projects are commercially successful.

As far as dogs go, I remember touring new buildings in NoMA 15+ years ago and being shocked at how the buildings included wings where dog owners could live, and on site facilities, like dog washing.  But still, dogs need to be walked and that imposes demand for different kinds of accommodations outside of a building. 

Downtown amenities need more focused consideration.  WRT parks planning, I wrote about this in terms of different needs for different scales ("Another example of the need to do comprehensive parks, recreation and civic assets planning at multiple scales, including neighborhoods like Columbia Heights," 2019).

It didn't specifically discuss Downtown.  Earlier, I wrote about this when a related item was before the Zoning Commission.  Back then, apartment buildings downtown successfully lobbied for a change in zoning requirements for them to provide recreational amenities.  They probably do still because people want them.

WHAT I suggested is that they should have had to pay recreation impact fees and the city should have created recreational amenities downtown.  Specifically, a recreation center.  At the time, there had been a YWCA at the corner of G Street and 7th Streets NW across from the MLK Library and Gallery Place, and it was unusual in its set of amenities as having a full sized pool.  But they sold it off and no such facility open to the public exists there.  

Similarly, this happened with the old YMCA building on Rhode Island Avenue NW just west of Dupont Circle.  They sold it off for the money, but I would have redeveloped the site, but with the inclusion of a new urban recreation center as part of the project, mixing civic and for profit functions, but vertically.

Mixed use commercial and residential districts are often ignored when creating such facilities.  Eg in DC there are plenty in the outer part of the city.  But not in the core.  In Salt Lake City, the County provides recreation centers although the city may fund the buildings.  But there are at least two serving core areas.  There could be more.  Although here residents including us, may be close to rec facilities in the county but not in Salt Lake--we go to one three miles away in Millcreek, but now I mostly go to the Wagner Jewish Community Center--it's closer and as I build my stamina again, it's an easier bike ride, etc.

Later in my writings about Silver Spring, I suggested creating a combined recreation center, arena, and roof top athletic facilities ("Creating the Silver Spring/Montgomery County Arena and Recreation Center (+ and a roof-top athletic field?)").  Something like that could be done in downtown districts, not just in DC but across the country.

And, writing about the post covid initiative to convert "unneeded" office buildings to housing and to attract more residents, I called for program planning to integrate amenities into Downtowns.

-- "The unintended consequences of converting office buildings to housing: the need for public safety; schools; amenities" (2022)
--"What is the competitive advantage for the post-covid city? Doubling down on place values"(2022)
--"Downtown St. Paul needs 20,000 more people to thrive | implications for urban revitalization in the post covid city" (2024)

-- "From more space to socially distance to a systematic program for pedestrian districts (Park City (Utah) Main Street Car Free on Sundays)" (2020)

-- "Place-making: Reimagining and reinventing public spaces for communities" resources page, Parks for London

Public space planning and the Buckhead Collection.  In terms of public spaces, years ago (15+) I wrote about the open space and amenities planning program for the Buckhead district of Atlanta.  At the time it seemed to be one of the most comprehensive studies of the issue for dense urban districts.  I should have integrated it better into my thinking about this scale of planning.  

It was spearheaded by the Buckhead Community Improvement District, the business improvement district for the area, which is far more intense than equivalent districts in DC.  

It's funded by commercial property, and I wonder if there is that tension I've previously identified with BIDs providing services to residents, but with limited opportunities for residents to express their voices independent of business interests.  When I would raise this issue in DC, it flew over the heads of most BID staffers.  They had never considered the question.  

At least with the Buckhead CID they have formalized partnership relationships, including a number of resident-based organizations like the sustainability focused Livable Buckhead and the historic preservation organization Buckhead Heritage.  With a change in longtime leadership, the Buckhead Coalition joined forces with the CID, Livable Buckhead and the Buckhead Business Association in a more formal way.

It didn't call for a full array of park spaces, given the land constraints and the reality that not all types of park and recreational facilities can be nor should be implemented in one place.  For example, larger facilities offer more activities, and are delivered at the regional scale.  Below are the seven types of spaces they identified as primary needs for urban districts.  Each is a single page summary, and the full plan is The Buckhead Collection: The A Greenspace Vision for City of Atlanta Council District 7 + Buckhead CID.  (I reordered it slightly.  Dog parks were at the end, but they are part of park spaces not the other categories.)

• Plazas
• Central Gathering Space
• Neighborhood Parks
• Community Greens
• Conservation Parks
• Dog Parks
• Greenways & Trails
• Historical & Cultural Resources
• Public Art

But while good on dog parks, ultimately they missed the need for a public recreation center.  There are some limited facilities in some residential districts. And a variety of for profit or nonprofit facilities like a pool, tennis, and fitness facilities. Probably most of the residents in apartment buildings stick to facilities in their buildings.  

But like what I suggested years ago in Downtown DC, public recreation centers should be included in mixed use districts.  Plus, for workers they'd have the added value of being able to provide shower and locker facilities for bicyclists.  

The Downtown YMCA in Indianapolis used to offer a dedicated bike support facility at City Market but it shut down ("City Market's Bike Hub Is Rolling Forward," Indianapolis Monthly).  But that kind of facility should be integrated into a downtown public recreational facility, serving multiple demographics and users.  

In Santa Monica, Bike Center Santa Monica is a bike shop that rents bikes and supports commuting (in a separate operation with secure bike parking, showers, and lockers, independent from government support other than likely cheap rent in a city parking structure), with a shop with roll up doors.  It's well located in a prominent location in a city parking structure, one block from the Downtown Santa Monica Metro Station and the Third Street Promenade pedestrian mall.

Dog park planning.  In planning for park, recreation and open spaces in urban districts, dog parks are one of the categories that should be included.  The Buckhead plan suggests two types, neighborhood ones but still with a fair amount of amenities, and larger ones serving multiple districts.

-- Dog runs 

---- Basic amenities including water fountain, waste stations. seating areas, fencing, shade| shelter, durable surfaces (typically not organic turf)

---- Experience:  Fulfills basic needs includingcanine to can in en interaction, socialization. canine exercise, waste disposal

-- Destination dog parks 

---- Full range of amenities including water fountain, waste stations, seating areas, segregated recreation areas, shade structures, water | beach access, agility courses | structures, trails | paths, larger exercise areas, restroom facilities, waste recycling, dedicated parking

---- Experience:  Provides a complete recreational experience including canine | canine interaction and socialization, canine/human recreation and interaction, larger size allows for increased flexibility and a greater variety of park programming, potential community event site.

It can be tough to pull off ("Going to the dogs").  In Salt Lake, the Park I'm on the board of is basically a 110 acre dog park already, and I don't want to fence off currently open space for dogs.  Especially because in a driving community like the Salt Lake Valley--people go to dog parks by car, and the traffic load and parking demand that would be induced far exceeds our current capacity.

But this small fenced in pet area at a rest stop on I-15 in Brigham City, Utah demonstrates you don't need a lot of space for it.  

Union Market has these kinds of spaces available.  Interestingly, I didn't take a contemporary photo, but some of the vintage produce sheds still exist on a still unused property on 6th Street NE at Penn Avenue.

This photo, by MrTinDC, from a market tour I led in 2008 shows what the shed space looks like.

The no longer in operation Bark Social in North Bethesda, Montgomery County, Maryland.

A mixed private-public option.  Another option along the lines of seeding amenities in new developments, in a dense building environment like a downtown or district like DC's new neighborhoods of Union Market, the Navy Yard, the Wharf, or the Parks at Walter Reed, maybe the way to go is to subsidize the private bar restaurant dog-friendly facilities that shut down recently,  because they aren't that profitable.  Add coffee/cafe functions, and don't require memberships.

Bark Social was one of those firms ("Meet your dog’s new favorite happy hour destination," Post).  This is in line with my long ago recommendation that community recreation plans should incorporate acknowledgement of and recommendations for for profit facilities too, to have a complete plan.  

Jud and Jane Wollard, both 58, of Silver Spring, sit with their dog, Murphy, on the left, as other dogs come around to be petted. Kate Bunker, 68, of Silver Spring, is on the right, and Havi Reguejo, 40, of North Bethesda, is in the center. People and dogs enjoy a Friday morning at Bark Social, a social club for dogs in North Bethesda. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)

And like my suggestion that for profit bike shops could be subsidized by including them in community recreation centers, maybe that's true for dog accommodations too--Bark Social has a couple of locations still.  But maybe the urban sites were just too costly.  That's where subsidy may be a reasonable consideration. Although on equity grounds, people might complain, but if it's money from a self-tax, like a BID or Green Benefits District fee, it doesn't come at the expense of other government budget priorities.

=====

"Saving what is now Union Market" | Inside and Outside campaigns to bring about change.  Interestingly, I hadn't thought about it this way back then, but above I mention Paul Pascal and his key role in helping the market district forge a way better future than the one being proposed back then by legacy politicos and business interests.  What's there now is far better than what "New Towns" ever proposed.

I suppose I was the leader of the "outside campaign" bringing public attention to the issue, leading tours, taking journalists on tours who then wrote stories, talking to student groups.  Paul was the leader of the "inside campaign" dealing with the political and economic elites (think "Growth Machine" and "Urban Regime" theory) who could discard the New Town initiative and lay the path for the other.

Both were necessary.  But very different.  Too often those of us in outside campaigns think we're the primary difference makers.  Sometimes we are.  Sometimes we aren't.  But there is no question that both make a stronger whole.

This comes up with what I wrote about in fighting an inappropriate proposal for a hotel on the border of Sugar House Park in Salt Lake ("s").  There I led the inside campaign.  I understood my knowledge of the process came from all the various projects, initiatives, and plans I participated in back then, mostly in DC, some in Baltimore.  But I never was quite on the inside--sometimes, sort of--the way that Paul was in DC.