88 Comments RSS

Add Your Comment

• Paul S on January 25, 2019 at 10:33 am

  I won't argue for or against this particular issue at 11th and Park...

  But the notion that anytime money is spent on a dog park it is not as moral as if the money was spent on "people only" uses I would have to disagree with. These dogs aren't taking themselves to the park. Their owners are people and they use the park with their dogs. A sub community of people who enjoy playing with and exercising their dogs is not any less valid park users who want to play soccer or push their kids on a swing set. In fact, most dog owners frequent dog parks much more often during a typical week than a recreational sports enthusiast or a parent with toddlers use a park.

  So I am not debating park vs housing. But in general for land that is parkland including space and funding for a dog park can be just as warranted as including a see-saw or soccer goal or whatever... 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• MDTSS on January 25, 2019 at 10:44 am

  Another part of the moral calculus is the supposition that if the money wasn't spent on the dog park that it would go towards affordable housing.

  But city budgets don't usually work like that. Budgets aren't zero sum artifacts. More likely than not, if the money isn't spent on a dog park, it just won't be spent.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Paul H on January 25, 2019 at 10:55 am
  There's also the question of just keeping some space in a community open, do we have to fill every available space with bricks and concrete? That said, if we had a smart zoning system the unbuilt housing capacity would be transferable to other nearby lots who could add a floor and a unit or two. The inflexibility of DC's zoning height restrictions brings this "dilemma", not the community's desire for a dog run, playground or just a patch of flowers.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 10:59 am

  But the notion that anytime money is spent on a dog park it is not as moral as if the money was spent on "people only" uses I would have to disagree with.

  No dog in this fight (sorry), but I just want to point out - this is not what the authors are arguing. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• charlie on January 25, 2019 at 11:00 am

  It is zoned MU4.  What size do you want the surrounding structures to be?  And how are you going to convince owners to sell?

  If they wanted to land sales, they would have sold 5 years ago.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Dan Miller on January 25, 2019 at 11:00 am
  I think you misunderstand--even if the lot was filled with private housing, it would still help alleviate the dire shortage of housing, both market-rate and affordable, that plagues the District.  As long as excessively strict zoning limits the amount of housing we produce, these are the kind of hard choices we'll have to make.  If you want to preserve open space, upzone the surrounding parcels.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• AdMo Fam on January 25, 2019 at 12:06 pm
  This is not about existing park space. This is presented as a tradeoff between human children and furry children. There is no moral equivalence from a public policy standpoint. This shouldn't even be a topic of debate. What's next? Tax write offs for dog walker fees? I do agree with you that pet space should be incorporated as part of greenspace and parks. Walter Pierce Park in Adams Morgan is a great example. The de facto dog park in a virtually unusable part of the park was as valuable as community gardens. And more accessible and inclusive. It was a big plus when it became official and not totally reliant on volunteers. The park overall is more safe and family friendly for dogs and kids. I hope future greenspace planning will proactively include safe animal space. The problem is not dogs, it's entitled dog owners who can't be bothered to walk a few blocks more to this part of the neighborhood. Instead, they are increasingly letting dogs offleash on tennis and basketball courts and a school/sports field. I've tried to politely remind my neighbors about the nearby dog-appropriate spaces. And the DPR signs saying no dogs. And the fact that claws damage court surfaces and turf. (I don't even bother with the hygiene issue.) The responses range from, "oh, I didn't know" (despite the signs) to "but everyone does" (no they don't which is why you're the only one here) to "do you live around here? I rent an apt. right across the street. Nobody else minds. Why do you care?" She's white and half my age. I'm Black and own the house next door to her building. I didn't bother saying that, but I wad really tempted to call 911 to report her failure to comply with my demands. ;) So even if 11th & Bark does become an exclusive space for dogs, I'll continue to see dog owners who have think they're entitled to public space for their own convenience. They are the ones with moral and ethical issues.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• CapHillResident on January 28, 2019 at 11:29 am

  Yes, I totally find it offensive that “unethical” is the reasoning to not have a dog park. Please...

  It’s unethical to drive vehicles that aren’t designed to make people live if you’re hit by them... unethical to fly in a plane to contribute to climate change... unethical to maintain green space for all to appreciate so we’re not crowded in everywhere by buildings. Unethical to not look both ways before riding your bike thru an intersection. We don’t live in a perfect world and we’re never going to live in one in the future. 

  If you’re concerned about not enough apartments... try to encourage our fine mayor to actually spend the previously allocated money on affordable housing. It doesn’t have to be spent where this park is located. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• CapHillResident on January 28, 2019 at 11:38 am
  Oh yeah... now if they were to write about the ethics of dog owners use of areas marked specifically as for not dogs? Or the spreading of pee and excrement over public lands, including tree boxes, where poo remains? Oh they would have had me at disgusting unethical behavior. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Henry R on January 25, 2019 at 10:38 am
  I'd be for the dog park if the dog park advocates were pushing to upzone the other parts of 11th St as well.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• JJJ on January 25, 2019 at 10:57 am
  DC has 100,000 less people now than at it's peak. I don't think those 100,000 people were living in their vans. Why then, does the city have a housing shortage?
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• charlie on January 25, 2019 at 11:01 am

  Strangely, 20 years ago that part of Columbia Heights was full of affordable housing.

  In fact, probably the best thing you could do is remove the existing low rise affordable housing left in the area and replace it with a mix of market and affordable units.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 11:03 am

  In 1950, they more or less were living in their vans. 

  Households were much bigger then - families had more kids, etc. 

  Also, DC's peak population came immediately after WWII and the associated restrictions on housing construction to support the war effort. Lots of people were renting rooms, hot bunking, and maybe living in their vans. 

  Finally, even though the population fell, the city still grew in other ways. The office core has expanded, taking over areas that were once residential neighborhoods and now are mixed use. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Daniel Miller on January 25, 2019 at 11:03 am

  Part of it is that households are shrinking--from 3.33 in 1960 to 2.53 in 2018.  So the same number of people is going to require more housing, because there are fewer families of 6 and more people who want to live alone.  www.statista.com/statistics/183648/av...

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• oboe on January 25, 2019 at 11:04 am

  I used to live in a 700 sq foot row-house. Some of my old-folks neighbors loved to tell stories about how some extended family of 6, 7, 8 people used to live in houses on that street. Mom, Dad, 4 kids, an uncle, grandma, etc, etc... Some of that had a flavor of "In my day..." to it, but there's no question that houses were smaller; household sizes, significantly larger.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• JJJ on January 25, 2019 at 11:51 am

  So we don't have a shortage, we have people demanding too much?

  I guess I am suffering a yacht shortage :(
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Another Nick on January 25, 2019 at 1:06 pm
  Even in my day, which wasn't all that long ago, it was super-common for kids to share bedrooms.  I know it was even more common in the decades before I was walking around.  That seems like a thing of the past now.  
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• DM on January 25, 2019 at 1:42 pm
  I don't think it's too demanding to say that I, as a single and unmarried person, would rather *not* bunk with someone and their 6 kids in a 700-square-foot rowhouse.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Jasper on January 25, 2019 at 11:05 am

  Oh, this is asking for a flame war between dog owners and haters.

  The urbanist argument for dog parks is that dog owners are frequent eyes on the street. DC does not have a lot of dog parks. The one between NH Ave, 17th and S Sts is always busy, indicating heavy use of an existing park.

  Arguments against dog parks are destruction of land for construction, and that dog parks are privilege sites. They're also NIMBY sites.

  I don't know the neighborhood very well, so I can't speak to the local needs.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Teen Spirit on January 25, 2019 at 11:08 am
  If this is put to a referendum I guarantee the residents of DC would prefer a couple of million of their tax dollars to be used on housing instead of a dog park. It's not just about morality, but following the will of the voters for the collective good. You can allocate space for dogs at regular parks since I rarely see them at full capacity all day, every day. You can also crate a green roof for the building where residents can take their dogs. Sorry, but dog parks are a luxury that DC taxpayers can't afford.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Chester B. on January 25, 2019 at 11:22 am

  If this is put to a referendum I guarantee the residents of DC would prefer a couple of million of their tax dollars to be used on housing instead of a dog park.

  It's unfortunate, but I wouldn't be so sure of that.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Fred on January 25, 2019 at 11:20 am
  Why single out dog parks?  Maybe all parks are unethical and should be converted to housing?
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• M Coffey on January 25, 2019 at 11:33 am
  GGW has jumped the shark. Will no longer advocate to other re: this site...
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• galmeida on January 25, 2019 at 1:52 pm
  I agree. There are few pieces on here these days that provide a balanced point of view and has become proof that YIMBY's can be just as short-sighted as the NIMBY's they rally against. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• JimT on January 25, 2019 at 11:35 am

  Maybe I am splitting doghairs, but you make the correct and persuasive economic argument--not an ethical and moral argument--that permanently setting aside this parcel as a dog park is not a good idea.  If metro allowed dogs and people from around the Larea  were going to take Metro to visit this dog park, then maybe it would be a reasonable land use.  But Metro's new bike policy is not going to be extended to dogs anytime soon.

  Nevertheless, it would not be unethical or immoral to dedicate this land as a dog park.  To be unethical, there needs to be something worse than existing users wanting to maintain the status quo:  If the decision makers are all dog owners living within a few blocks and current users of the dog park, then they need to recuse or it would be unethical.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 1:11 pm

  Nevertheless, it would not be unethical or immoral to dedicate this land as a dog park. To be unethical, there needs to be something worse than existing users wanting to maintain the status quo: If the decision makers are all dog owners living within a few blocks and current users of the dog park, then they need to recuse or it would be unethical.

  This kinda ignores the current context. WMATA owns the land, and they've decided to sell to the highest bidder. 

  So, the question then is: should the city outbid everyone else for the purposes of keeping a dog park on site? 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 1:23 pm

  So, the question then is: should the city outbid everyone else for the purposes of keeping a dog park on site? 

  The people who maintain the dog park have not said that they want the city to outbid everyone else, they said they want the city to make a fair market value offer.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 1:57 pm

  I mean, not to nitpick the semantics, but the fair market value is whatever someone is willing to pay. In other words, the highest bidder. 

  WMATA already offered the site to DC with the right of first refusal to make a fair market offer, and they couldn't come to a deal. DC had $1.5m in funds. Now WMATA is asking for bids no less than $2.15m. They obviously have comps/assessments to suggest that's what it's worth. 

  But if you're representing the city, it can be awfully hard to justify that expense just for the land. Remember that this site really isn't a dog park at all - it's a fenced-in lot that is used as a dog park. It doesn't have any good off-leash facilities, no water access (IIRC), etc. So the actual cost to make it a good park would be even higher. 

  Therefore, if the city were to invest that $1.5m, why not instead invest it in a nearby site? 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 2:15 pm

  FMV is actually not the same as the highest bid someone is willing to make (just think about how the city arrived at the FMV of the parcel despite the fact that no one has bid on it yet).

  In any case, the city can only budget a specific predetermined amount so it would not be able to make bids in real time anyway.

  I agree that there are likely more suitable parcels that can be transformed into dog parks for $1.5-$2 million but this article is not offering that solution. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 2:43 pm

  The fair market value is the value at which the buyer and seller agree. WMATA and DC negotiated before and did not agree. Now WMATA has said they will sell to the highest bidder. 

  We often talk about the FMV of a parcel as a way to estimate because we don't actually have a sale transaction, but in this case we will have a sale. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Yariv Yanay on January 25, 2019 at 11:46 am

  I'm wondering if any of the authors of the piece have gone out for coffee, food, or drinks in the last year. If so, have they considered the ethics of it? The $4 you spend on coffee could buy two malaria nets instead. Instead of a $10 drink you could buy five! By giving up your morning coffee for a year you could probably save someone's life.

  Or for that matter, what is the ethics of spending your life advocating for better urban living in the developed world - a luxury, if you take a global view of things - instead of focusing on poverty in the global south, or social justice in the US, or at least some sort of medical research?

  I think you could seriously make the case that investing in luxury goods while some people lack basic necessities is immoral. But if that is something you truly believe, you should have bigger concerns than dog parks vs housing in one of the world's richest cities.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Chester B. on January 25, 2019 at 1:16 pm

  I'm wondering if any of the authors of the piece have gone out for coffee, food, or drinks in the last year. If so, have they considered the ethics of it? The $4 you spend on coffee could buy two malaria nets instead. Instead of a $10 drink you could buy five! By giving up your morning coffee for a year you could probably save someone's life.

  Do you watch The Good Place?  I highly recommend it.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Mr. Transit on January 25, 2019 at 4:14 pm
  The authors spend their private money on coffee, donuts, etc.  The issue is whether government should spend money to acquire land for a dog park on this site.  There is a difference.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Will on January 25, 2019 at 6:55 pm
  Is the implication here that government should only spend money on necessities and not amenities? Rock Creek Park doesn't have any apartments in it. Should we pave it over and build there? 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Caroline Taylor on January 26, 2019 at 12:42 am
  Shhhhh... don't give the over zelous at GGW any ideas.?
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• JJJ on January 25, 2019 at 11:54 am

  I was shocked to recently discover that large sections of downtown washington dc are currently sitting vacant. These extensive parcels of grass sit surrounded by thousands of jobs.  What they call the "national mall" is really just exclusionary zoning that pushes the working poor out of the city into Maryland and Virginia.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Dan Miller on January 25, 2019 at 2:22 pm
  Hey, if the feds aren't going to give DC any representation, I don't see why DC should be obligated to host their facilities.  Occupy the Mall!
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 11:55 am

  First, dog parks are not only useful for pets. I primarily take my dog to the dog park for my own well-being; a dog that is socialized and exercised is easier to take care of than one that isn't. I also get great joy out of watching her explore and play.

  Second, dog parks are  "third spaces" and establish a sense of place in a neighborhood. They are often where we get to meet neighbors that we would rarely talk to otherwise.

  Third, there is a LOT of scholarly evidence that many people consider their pets, especially dogs, to be just as important as close relatives and family member. 

  Fourth, the chances of "subsidized, capital-A affordable housing" being built on this site would be fairly slim. Most likely, the parcel would be used primarily for market rate housing (a luxury good, far more expensive than owning a pet) with a small set aside for IZ units. 

  Thus, the debate between building housing and a dog park is a worthy one to have. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• JimT on January 25, 2019 at 12:15 pm
  I construed the article as mainly arguing against a dog park on this particular parcel which is so close to a Metro station that WMATA owned it, not as an argument against dog parks in general.  
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 12:33 pm

  I construed the article as mainly arguing against a dog park on this particular parcel which is so close to a Metro station that WMATA owned it

  This article never even mentioned its proximity to a Metro station. 

  The parcel is owned by WMATA because it has an access grate that I assume at one time was used by Metro personnel to access track between Columbia Heights and Petworth stations. It's not exactly on top of the Metro station but rather 2000 feet away.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• mark on January 25, 2019 at 12:26 pm

  I don't own a dog but I live in the neighborhood. This is a good debate to have. My own thoughts:  

  Offering alternative spaces that are a mile away strikes me as unrealistic -- wouldn't it add an extra 30-40 minutes of walking to get your dog there and back? Also, pulling Rock Creek Park and the National Park Service into this seems really egregious. There are no facilities for off-leash dogs that I know of in Rock Creek Park (which, by the way, is open only during daylight hours);  and while off-leash dogs are common there, they are nevertheless against the rules, harmful to the park and its wildlife, and a nuisance or worse to other activities there. If the city's elected representatives can't provide a dog park in the neighborhood, there's basically zero chance the National Park Service -- non-elected, answerable really to everyone EXCEPT District residents -- could be expected to do so.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 12:39 pm

  Offering alternative spaces that are a mile away strikes me as unrealistic -- wouldn't it add an extra 30-40 minutes of walking to get your dog there and back?

  Seeing as most dogs like to stop and sniff and urinate and so forth, you're probably looking at an hour to get there and back. 

  I wonder how well it would go over to ask people to walk their strollers for an hour to get to and from a playground. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Eddie Whitehurst on January 25, 2019 at 12:29 pm

  I live in this neighborhood and do not want to see city spend this amount of money to buy this land for a dog park.  I think the city should try and find another area as a park.  This is a prime location on the 11th street business zone and should be used for a local business or for housing.  Can a dog park be part of the public community garden area behind 11th st or next to the Hebrew Home on Spring Rd. or near the Rec Center on 10th st?

  I am all for funding dog parks with a mix of private and public funds but I do not think this location is the best.  Metro should try and get the most they can as they need the funds and the DC gov should not be paying top dollar for a dog park.  It simply makes sense to look elsewhere. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Marshall on January 25, 2019 at 12:41 pm

  I recently started taking my dog to this dog park regularly, and it is a real boon to the neighborhood. The dog park, as others have noted, is a "third place" that allows people to socialize, get to know each other, and build community. Prioritizing it isn't just supporting dogs. It supports a vibrant community. It supports dense urban environments, with eyes on the street. These are things that as urbanists we should support. 

  If this parcel would otherwise go to affordable housing that would be one thing. But we all know that if WMATA sells it to a private developer, it will become 10-20 overpriced condos that will be bought by new Amazon employees, not residents in need of housing. 

  Also, there are several critical elements of dog ownership the authors fail to understand.

  They write that prioritizing dog parks is"reflective of a suburban and rural norm, not that of a city." This is the opposite of reality. Dogs need regular exercise and socialization, off leash. In a rural or suburban setting, this does not require a fenced-off dog park. People have their own yards, and you can safely let your dog run with other dogs in a large open field without a fence. It is precisely in dense cities where we most need dog parks.

  Secondly, dog parks are best when they are places you can walk your dog too.  The authors write: "The 11th and Park intersection is 1.1 miles away from the Upshur dog park, and one mile away from Rock Creek Park." But this is not a fair comparison. Rock Creek does not allow you to run your dog off-leash. And unless you have a dog like a husky that needs to run 5 miles a day, you aren't going to be making a regular 2-mile round trip walk to a dog park. You either not going at all, or you are driving. Since when does GGW say that amenities that you have to drive to are fine? Besides, the District's Sustainable DC plan calls for the city to "provide essential services within a quarter-mile walk and a variety of services and  amenities within a half-mile walk of all residents." This is exactly that sort of amenity that should be within a half-mile--even in a dense, metro-accessible area.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Another Nick on January 25, 2019 at 1:12 pm

  Calling a dog park a "rural norm" is the most hilariously out of touch thing I've yet read in 2019, which really says something.  There's no such thing as a "dog park" out in the country.  Heck, "walking your dog" isn't a thing in the country.  You just let the dog go outside and it'll come back eventually.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• drumz on January 25, 2019 at 1:17 pm

  Dog parks aren't a rural norm. The way we approach dog ownership in city planning might reflect those rural norms. That idea that dogs absolutely need a ton of open space even in the middle of dense urban neighborhoods is what creates the dissonance. 

  Similar to other things in our planning that might make sense in a different type of neighborhood but not in a place like Columbia Heights. Like large parking lots. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Neil Flanagan on January 25, 2019 at 1:18 pm
  If dogs require so much exercise to compensate for the cramped conditions this level of density requires, then perhaps it's cruel to keep them in cities, and the practice should be illegal for the welfare of the animals.  
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Eddie Y on January 25, 2019 at 1:18 pm

  OMG I love this sentence "...that will be bought by new Amazon employees, not residents in need of housing." Dying. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 25, 2019 at 1:32 pm

  If dogs require so much exercise to compensate for the cramped conditions this level of density requires, then perhaps it's cruel to keep them in cities, and the practice should be illegal for the welfare of the animals.  

  It's not really a matter of density so much as the laws and customs that have transformed dogs from freely roaming outdoor animals (dogs have lived in cities as long as we have) to pets that stay inside most of the day. 

  Dogs do not require dog parks but they do require exercise and outdoor activity, and they benefit tremendously from socialization, so a dog park is a good way to achieve those needs.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Bill Smith on January 25, 2019 at 2:01 pm
  Usually, but I've seen mine pick up his bowl and carry it over to my neighbors.  I've had to go over and get him as they like to feed him. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• galmeida on January 25, 2019 at 2:06 pm

  LOL

   Neil - never change. 

  xoxo

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Maria on January 25, 2019 at 2:23 pm

  "new Amazon employees, not residents in need of housing."  Hmm.  So will the new Amazon employees not actually need a place to live (unlike normal human beings)?  Intriguing.  If they won't need a place to live, perhaps we could relieve housing demand across the region by forbidding them, by law, from having a place to live.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Another Nick on January 25, 2019 at 2:28 pm

   The way we approach dog ownership in city planning might reflect those rural norms. 

  They're so different that they don't even reflect.  The rural norm is "the dog's outside somewhere.  He'll come back when he's hungry.  Probably."  When I lived in the country, we treated dogs more like what the suburbs call an "outside cat."  Even dogs that spent most of their time indoors still got plenty of outside time, but a lot of that was only marginally observed running around time with the human there largely to keep the dog from running away (depending on the breed).  The only reason you even owned a leash was for when the dog had to go to the vet.

  I'm not sure I've ever seen an urban dog house either, yet those were practically a thing in every fifth yard.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• drumz on January 25, 2019 at 2:37 pm

  " The only reason you even owned a leash was for when the dog had to go to the vet."

  Right. But then if you grew up with that expectation but then move to the city where the dog nearly always needs to be on the leash you might think the city should do more to ensure more off-leash spaces for dogs. 

  Which is fine if that's what you want to advocate for but it does reflect a norm on how we raise a dog. 

  And at least in the rural town I grew up in plenty of people still griped about neighbors who let their dogs run all over the place. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Travis Maiers on January 25, 2019 at 12:49 pm

  Any reason why the dog park couldn't move about 300 feet east to existing Park Road Park? Looking at street view, Park Road Park is one of those unused grass triangle "parks" that are all over DC. How about "activating" that site with a dog park? Bonus - it even looks comparable in size to the WMATA land.

  Easy win-win if you ask me. An existing, official park gets a purpose and regular use, folks who enjoy 11th and Bark need only walk half a block farther to hang out with their dogs, and more housing gets built on a prime piece of real estate.

  www.google.com/maps/@38.9320061,-77.0...

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Travis Maiers on January 25, 2019 at 12:54 pm

  Seems it is a DC Department of Parks and Rec property, referred to as Triangle Park.

  Site Name : Triangle Park 

  Address : New Hampshire, Sherman Ave and Park Place, NW, Washington DC 

  Classification : Small Park

  dpr.dc.gov/node/1238961

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Neil Flanagan on January 25, 2019 at 12:58 pm
  Right? It probably already has more usable space, even before you cut the parking around the slip lane. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Alex B. on January 25, 2019 at 1:19 pm
  And the cost of adding dog park facilities to that triangle is surely less than WMATA's $2.15m asking price. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• DM on January 25, 2019 at 1:36 pm

  Literally came here to post this.

  Not to mention: having lived near the World's Worst Triangle Park (14th and Ogden), it's definitely a net positive for the community to turn an unused, undevelopable land into a useful space anyway.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Mike in Petworth on January 25, 2019 at 2:13 pm
  Thank you! That park barely gets used now and would be a far better site for a dog park than the current ad hoc site at Park and 11th.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Chris on January 28, 2019 at 11:35 am

  Completely agree, oddly shaped sites like this one seem like great candidates for a dog park...

  I live a few blocks away and agree that walking to Upshur or Rock Creek aren't great options, but re-purposing this triangle site or even part of the trolley turnaround park seem like much better options.

  Also not familiar with the guidelines about dogs and schools, but it seems that there's space for a dog run of some kind next to either Tubman or Raymond.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• skeptic on January 25, 2019 at 1:23 pm

  "Dog park" is a misnomer for the purposes of this discussion. It's a park where _people_ go to run their dogs, enjoy being outside, and possibly be social. It's a "people park" like any other park... public space used for recreation. I don't think you'd argue a city shouldn't have any recreation space if there is a housing shortage.

  We can debate the best use for public space, including for recreation space, and we can debate the correct proportion of land that should be devoted to recreation space, but there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about having space for recreation.

  Tennis courts vs. basketball courts vs. dog parks vs. rec centers vs. golf courses vs. playgrounds etc. ... they're all ways to use the public space for recreation, and they appeal far more to some people than others. But recreation space is not inherently bad, including "dog parks."

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scott on January 25, 2019 at 1:33 pm

  "10 or 12 one-, two-, or three-bedroom units" you say.  Ha - you either have 10-12 units OR you have 3BRs.  Your square-foot limit will make you choose.  

  You also either have units for young professionals with money, or you have units for families.  Which one do you want?  You can talk affordability all day, but size of units says who gets to be there.  

  We know what the market wants!  The market WILL make these all 1's and 2's.  It will charge top dollar.  3BRs sell for less, per square foot.  They'll definitely be pushed to include parking, by neighbors jealously guarding street space they use now.  The rules might require one to be "affordable."  Right across the street, there are plans for 24 units - only one is a 3BR.  I doubt it will be the affordable one.  

  A mile from other dog parks like Upshur or Rock Creek?  Too far if you're dealing with your free half hour after work, walking in less-than-perfect weather with kids, or meeting a friend on the way home.  The implication is that we have this amenity already, but you wouldn't say the same about grocery stores, metro access or other walking-oriented amenities.  We know a mile is too far for those.  

  More housing?  Great!  Much of this area is built well below 40 feet.  Make room for that housing to be expanded (up, back, split).   

  GGW's clearly found its rallying cry - more housing! - but its writing lately on this point has not been very thoughtful.  You have more thinking to do, gang...

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Dan Miller on January 25, 2019 at 2:26 pm
  3-bedroom units will end up hosting professionals too; plenty of people living with roommates in DC.  If you really want families to be able to afford space, you're going to need to build a ton more housing--upzone entire neighborhoods!
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scott on January 28, 2019 at 2:42 pm
  Fair point - I don't disagree
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Tony on January 25, 2019 at 1:52 pm
  K-9 lives matter. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Smart Growther on January 25, 2019 at 3:54 pm

  [This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Nick on January 25, 2019 at 6:41 pm
  I have friends who use that dog park.  I have no issue with it remaining a public space and dog park.  A park may be the best use, actually, with the large vents on the site. Maybe even try the Swampoodle park (vertical park) model to add something for neighborhood kids. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Jason on January 25, 2019 at 7:50 pm

  Is it unethical to build something in every open space left in the city?

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Matt Caffrey on January 25, 2019 at 9:17 pm

  My wife and I bring our dog to this dog park every week. We meet people of all backgrounds, participate in community organized events, and enjoy the opportunity to spend time outside and in one of the few pieces of green space in our neighborhood. Dog parks aren’t about dogs - they’re about people (who happen to have a dog). In other words, for us, this dog park is a critical piece of social infrastructure. 

  Green space and social infrastructure are limited in our area - especially social infrastructure that’s free and open to the public. And two thirds of the acreage of the park in our neighborhood is about to be redeveloped into affordable housing - which I support on balance because it would house so many people. We’re adding more people all the time, while loosing green space - which is critical to public health. Meanwhile, there are several vacant properties in our neighborhood that could be redeveloped for housing - and a few that are in the process of being redeveloped. The dog park is a tiny fraction of the space, but much loved and used by the community. 

  Finally, the biggest barrier to developing more housing is not a 1/4 acre of green space that people have been using as a park for a decade - it’s the strict zoning laws that prevent more dense development. Density - not eliminating every scrap of livability from the neighborhood - is the path to a more affordable house market.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Steve on January 26, 2019 at 8:01 am
  I think what is unethical is confining a dog to a small inner-city home, limiting its physical activity and making it wait to relieve itself until the owner or dog-walker shows up. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Eric Code on January 26, 2019 at 9:13 pm
  [Deleted for violating the comment policy.] Dog parks are for people. People are the park users - not dogs. Some people like dogs, some don’t. Others like tennis, baseball, soccer or what have you. It’s all recreation and it’s all good. It’s critical to find the right balance for all park users, and dog parks actually benefit people who dislike dogs by giving dogs an appropriate space, away from other people. We can all get along :)
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Jason Hawke on January 28, 2019 at 9:38 am

  If there are 700,000 tax paying citizens in DC than a $2 million dog park would cost each citizen $2.85 in one year. Dog parks are part of healthy green space and what makes a city livable. 

  There are other many other alternatives to increasing the housing supply. I have been in DC for almost 20 years - I don't remember when that space *wasn't* a dog park.

  You are affectively arguing that an existing park should be turned into housing. I don't think that would actually make the city better.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Scoot on January 28, 2019 at 10:04 am

  There are other many other alternatives to increasing the housing supply. I have been in DC for almost 20 years - I don't remember when that space *wasn't* a dog park.

  The land has been owned by WMATA but it has been used as a dog park since 2009. WMATA is looking to sell a bunch of land to shore up its funding.

  I think the big problem lacking discussion in this post is that the chances of housing being built at this site any time soon are quite slim. The chances more than 1 or 2 units of affordable housing being constructed here are virtually zero. The article is presenting a "choice" -- dog park or 12 affordable housing units -- which is false.

  Even if a developer does buy the site today, and turns it into housing, how soon until anyone can move in? 5 years, at least? Until then it's just going to be sitting empty, not benefiting anyone. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Joe Arlington on January 28, 2019 at 10:13 am

  [Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

  Against a new park?  Come on, parks are part of what makes urban life livable.  Sure, there would be plenty of housing if we knocked down all the museums, libraries, and community centers too.

  I used to live in NYC, thought it was too expensive.  I guess if they had covered Central Park in condos it would have been better.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Chester B. on January 28, 2019 at 10:16 am

  I used to live in NYC, thought it was too expensive. I guess if they had covered Central Park in condos it would have been better.

  I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I wonder if GGW would, in theory, support converting some of Central Park into housing?

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• cyco on January 29, 2019 at 11:22 am
  I sincerely doubt it. GGW is generally in favor of (smartly-planned) green space, and Central Park is a critical reason that Manhattan is livable and desirable even at high densities. I would wager that there are tons of lower-hanging fruit in NYC.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• drumz on January 28, 2019 at 10:27 am

  For all the questions of "why not turn other park space into housing" forgets the fact that this isn't a park per se. It's temporary space leased for use as a dog park. 

  That's different from Rock Creek, or Central Park, or the Mall or whatever. 

  At the end of the day WMATA might just sell it to someone who wants to buy it and put in a Car Wash or CVS as well. But there are calls that the city should buy it. The relevant question is what the city should do with it if it does buy it. Not hypotheticals about other parks. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• andrew on January 28, 2019 at 10:34 am

  Absent from the article: Can this plot of land even support a building on top of it?  My understanding is that there's a fairly large drop-shaft immediately below the existing park, which is one of the reasons why the plot has never been sold or developed.  

  If nothing else, the inability to build a basement (and need to provide accommodations for WMATA to access the site) doesn't really seem like it's been fully incorporated into the $2.1 Million estimate.  

  If WMATA ends up on the hook for ~$1 million to prep the site for construction if it's sold to a developer, that also needs to be taken into consideration.  

  Basically, I'm market rate saying that the market rate for this site seems like it's way, way off, and that this discussion would be a lot different if we were discussing a plot of land that's half the size.  

  (FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of dog parks, and I'm in favor of preserving this parcel as open space.  Columbia Heights doesn't have nearly enough green space)
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• SkorpioG on January 28, 2019 at 10:59 am

  For DC to rid itself of the housing shortage, and tackle the ever escalating market price of said housing, it needs to rid itself of the height restriction and amend the zoning ordnance to allow 10+ FAR. 

  To do anything less is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; a futile gesture that helps no one. Until then, the artificial ceiling limits what can be done with the little land that's left, and the cost of development is kept artificially high, which in turn makes housing unaffordable, causing the city to spend more money to combat it. 

  This is incredibly stupid to create a problem and then offer a solution to the problem that should never have been created in the first place. If we did this we wouldn't be arguing dog park versus housing.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• cmc on January 28, 2019 at 12:03 pm
  What a great debate. I hope GGW can put together a follow up including some further discussion with points brought up by others. 
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Eric Code on January 28, 2019 at 1:04 pm

  Excellent discussion. 

  While many people believe that dog parks are just for dogs, it’s important to recognize that like all forms of parks, dog parks are for people. People - members of the community- are the primary park users. And as with all other types of parks, dog parks are essential for communities.

  The more housing units you have, the more people and dogs you have, so the more you need dog parks. It isn’t a question of housing OR dog parks. Housing REQUIRES dog parks - especially high-density developments.

  For people with dogs, dog parks are their regular parks. They are places to unwind, connect with the outdoors, be social, and engage with the community.

  Some people dislike dogs, and that’s okay. Dog parks benefit them too by giving off-leash dogs a responsible place to be, away from other public spaces like playgrounds and sports fields.

  Dog parks also benefit communities by reducing crime - more eyes on the park, at all times of day, at all times of year.

  So, let’s recognize that dog parks are for people and communities. A better question would be whether it would be unethical to have communities without dog parks, playgrounds, sports fields and all the other wonderful public spaces that bring communities together. 

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• Woof on January 29, 2019 at 10:37 am

  I am the dog park planner for Montgomery County but live in the District and know this spot well. Dog parks are absolutely a third space / gathering place and provide numerous social and emotional benefits for humans and obviously exercise and socialization for the dogs. Not all dog owners and vets are in agreement about the benefits of dog parks for dogs, however I think everyone would agree that the success of this space as a dog park indicates that people in the immediate 11th street neighborhood want a space like this.  Perhaps - like other comments mentioned - there is another location nearby that is already city-owned that could accommodate a small dog run like this, or a future redevelopment in the early stages that could accommodate this type of facility. In MoCo we do review development plans for all kinds of park and rec facilities, whether the development involves acquisition of new parkland through dedication of land or the creation of privately owned public space. Maybe the takeaway here should be less that's "unethical" but more that it may be considered an inefficient use of tax dollars until other options are explored in partnership with the great folks at DC DPR who plan and design DC's parks and rec facilities. Cheers.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• cyco on January 29, 2019 at 11:20 am
  Your job sounds really interesting -- could be a great follow-up post!
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• MG on January 30, 2019 at 2:47 pm
  Silly article. A better question would be is it ethical to jam more housing into an area that already has a lot of housing when there are underutlized areas all over the United States where sellers are begging to sell housing. Rural U.S. has walkable towns with beautiful restorable homes that provide wonderful lifestyles.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• CrossingBrooklynFerry on January 31, 2019 at 10:45 am
  Yes it is. The housing shortage in DC (SF, NYC, etc) will not help homeowners in Flint or Youngstown unless and until jobs go there.  And keeping jobs out of the big coastal metro areas A. Probably is not feasible anyway B. Will in all likelihood just mean more jobs in big sunbelt metros like Dallas and Nashville, not more jobs in Flint or Youngstown
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• That Was Easy on January 31, 2019 at 10:34 am
  Another hot-take piece of click-bait; if you’d suggested turning dog parks into gondola stations where fare evasion is decriminalized, you would have had the holy trinity of GGW posts. When r/washingtondc thinks you’re an echo chamber full of kooks, you know you’ve really jumped the shark.
  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report
• ZD on February 7, 2019 at 11:03 pm
  
  

  Put dog parks on roofs. Then we can have both buildings and dog parks.

  • Reply
  • Link
  • Report