Welcome to our live chat with NCPC planners Shane Dettman and David Zaidan, to discuss the federal government’s effort to better activate the plazas and street facades of their buildings in and around Washington, DC.

Live chat: Activating Federal Places with NCPC(09/16/2010)
12:48
David Alpert:
Welcome to our live chat on activating federal places.
Thursday September 16, 2010 12:48 David Alpert
12:49
David Alpert:
Shane Dettman and David Zaidan will be with us in a few minutes. In the meantime, feel free to submit your questions. We’ll get to as many of them as we can in the hour.
Thursday September 16, 2010 12:49 David Alpert
12:51
David Alpert:
Also, while you wait, take a look at NCPC’s video about current efforts to activate places like the courtyard at the Reagan Building
Thursday September 16, 2010 12:51 David Alpert
12:51
Thursday September 16, 2010 12:51
12:57
Do you find federal public buildings in Washington to be welcoming and accessible to the public?

Yes

( 9% )
No

( 91% )

Thursday September 16, 2010 12:57
1:01
David Alpert:
Shane and David are now with us. Welcome!
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:01 David Alpert
1:03
Shane Dettman:
Hello there.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:03 Shane Dettman
1:03
David Z:
Hello eveyone. Welcome to the on-line chat!
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:03 David Z
1:04
David Alpert:
The video talks about the GSA’s desire to expand their building in a way that includes a ground floor that engages the public more. When it came before NCPC there was a question whether they would do it or need more security. Have they decided whether they are able to do that?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:04 David Alpert
1:06
Shane Dettman:
I believe the project that you are referring to is GSA’s initiative ot modernize its headquarters in the Northwest Rectangle. Currently, NCPC staff is working with GSA to determine whether perimeter security will be required at the building. No determination has been made as of yet.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:06 Shane Dettman
1:07
David Alpert:
Thanks. A lot of readers wanted to talk about security, which drives a lot of the design decisions in federal buildings:
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:07 David Alpert
1:07
[Comment From JasperJasper: ]
Why do they think that the securitization of buildings has become so bezerk? Why is the government so afraid of the general public?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:07 Jasper
1:07
[Comment From andrewandrew: ]
Why can I walk into Congress with nothing more than a metal detector sweep, or into Walter Reed or the Navy Yard with nothing more than an ID check, while some of the more minor and innocuous federal agencies are locked up tighter than Fort Knox? The security priorities seem extremely jumbled.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:07 andrew
1:07
Shane Dettman:
In NCPC’s review of the concept staff commended GSA for its effort to explore retail and supported this idea.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:07 Shane Dettman
1:13
David Zaidain:
That is a great question and really is the crux of the issue. I don’t believe that there is a fear of the general public it is more a proliferation of concerns stemming from a host of events, particularly Oklahoma City and 9/11. Beyond general fear, a central issue is that there is no one coherent security policy and many agencies, such as DoD, Architect of the Capitol, State Department, etc who have their own security policies and do their own assessments. To address this NCPC has established an interagency security task force and we have tried to move improve security solutions and designs.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:13 David Zaidain
1:14
David Alpert:
A lot of people aren’t that familiar with NCPC. Can you explain what NCPC’s role is in terms of these interagency decisions? Does NCPC have any ability to push agencies to do the right thing, or is it all just a matter of convening meetings and trying to gently persuade?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:14 David Alpert
1:18
Shane Dettman:

NCPC is involved in the planning and design of security at several levels. For projects located in the District, we work very closely with federal and District agencies on trying to find a design that meets both the federal agency’s needs while being consistent with local regulations intended to protect public space, one of Wahsington’s most important assets. For these types of projects, NCPC has approval authority.

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:18 Shane Dettman
1:18
David Alpert:
OK, let’s move on to talking about ground-floor uses of federal buildings.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:18 David Alpert
1:18
[Comment From TeyoTeyo: ]
I remember reading somewhere that the FBI building was originally designed to have retail on its ground floor but that the plan was scrapped in the interest of security. Granted, that building is so hideous I don’t think a row of sidewalk cafes would save it, but it would be interesting if it was converted to have retail on its ground floor, as it has prime retail space on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:18 Teyo
1:19
Which active uses are most important to integrate into federal facilities?

Retail shops and services

( 18% )
Dining and sidewalk cafes

( 55% )
Cultural attractions, museums, and theaters

( 9% )
Parks and plazas

( 18% )
Special events

( 0% )

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:19
1:24
David Zaidain:
We agree that the FBI isn’t contributing to the vitality of Penn Ave and our Monumental Core Framework Plan provides a vision for redeveloping that block. The building is pretty inefficient and may not meet future needs of the FBI, so we think something could happen on this site in the not so distant future. Given the current design of the building, it would be a challange to alter it with successful retail without redeveloping the site. We are optimistic that something could happen in the future to improve this critical site.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:24 David Zaidain
1:25
David Alpert:
That raises an interesting question. How many of our federal buildings could be adapted to include things like ground-floor cafes without completely redoing them?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:25 David Alpert
1:26
[Comment From HerschelHerschel: ]
Constitution Avenue must be our greatest wasted space. It should be lined with cafés, shops, restaurants, and even theatres, but instead, the only commercial activity carried on there is the sale of t-shirts and hot dogs from trashy carts. Will the NCPC be looking at enlivening Washington’s grandest boulevard?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:26 Herschel
1:26
David Alpert:
Many people wouldn’t miss the FBI building, but the Federal Triangle buildings like those on Constitution are just as dead to the street, but are much more attractive and surely wouldn’t be razed. Can these be retrofitted in some way?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:26 David Alpert
1:26
Shane Dettman:

During our work on developing the Framework Plan, we looked closely at Constitution Avenue and specifically at finding ways to enliven the avenue through programming and landscape improvements. The Framework Plan envisions Constitution Avenue as a sustainable linear park with not only public amenities such as seating and vending, but also sustainable features designed to address stormwater management. In addition, NCPC is also interested in developing a Federal Triangle Heritage Trail which will run along Constituion Avenue and throughout the Federal Triangle. NCPC recently completed a Federal Triangle Heritage Trail Assessment Report which can be found on our website.

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:26 Shane Dettman
1:27
David Alpert:
Thanks. Does that mean ground-floor uses are not really in the cards for Constitution?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:27 David Alpert
1:27
What information would you most like to see incorporated into a Federal Triangle Heritage Trail?

Art and architecture

( 33% )
History of the area before the Federal Triangle

( 56% )
History and mission of the federal agencies

( 0% )
Stories of notable figures throughout time

( 11% )

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:27
1:29
David Zaidain:
We believe federal buildings generally can be retrofitted. There are many techniques such as building wraps or facade adjustments that could be utilized if designed properly.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:29 David Zaidain
1:30
David Alpert:
Are there some specific buildings that you think are good candidates for this in the relatively near future? David asks:
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:30 David Alpert
1:30
[Comment From DavidDavid: ]
Which Federal Buildings would you consider to be the Worst Offenders? Also will you prioritize an action plan based upon location? (HHS since it is near the mall versus a HUD that is further away?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:30 David
1:31
David Alpert:
While they’re answering, let’s actually ask the flip side question to all the readers:
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:31 David Alpert
1:31
Which new federal facility in Washington do you find the most inviting?

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (NoMa)

( 0% )
E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse Annex (downtown)

( 0% )
U.S. Department of Transportation (SE Washington/Navy Yard)

( 67% )
United States Institute of Peace (National Mall/Foggy Bottom)

( 33% )

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:31
1:31
Shane Dettman:

As you just noted, the buildings in the Federal Triangle are notable for their art and architecture and surely could not be razed. That’s not to say it would be impossible to incorporate ground-floor retail in the area, it would just have to be thoroughly studied and done very carefully. However, if it is determined that it would be too intrusive on the historic fabric there are other alternatives. The Federal Triangle has an enormous amount of public space and can be programmed with food vendors, concerts, and farmers markets. Some of this is already going on such as the farmers market and concert series in Woodrow Wilson Plaza.

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:31 Shane Dettman
1:35
David Zaidain:
Worst Offenders? Well, in developing the Framework Plan, during the public comment phase, we frequently heard interest in redeveloping the FBI, Department of Energy, and enlivening the Old Post Office Building’s Glass Annex.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:35 David Zaidain
1:36
Shane Dettman:
As to the previous question about Constitution Avneue, I neglected to mention that GSA is currently in the process of modernizing the Department of Commerce Building. Part of that project includes the relocation of the National Aquarium to the south side of the building and the construction of a modern, much more visible entrance along Constitution Avenue. This will help to enliven the avenue as well.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:36 Shane Dettman
1:36
David Alpert:
Great. Let’s move on to activity that’s more than just physical retail.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:36 David Alpert
1:36
[Comment From Eric FidlerEric Fidler: ]
There are several Federal office districts in the city that go dead at night since nobody lives there. Does the NCPC have a master plan or will the NCPC develop a plan to guide the revival of these districts into “18-hour” neighborhoods?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:36 Eric Fidler
1:39
Shane Dettman:
The concept of the “18-hour neighborhood” is exactly what we call for in the Framework Plan. For example, we recommend redevelopment of the 10th Street corridor in Southwest to include a mixture of office, residential, and retail. NCPC is also working with several federal agencies to recreate C Street, SW to be a walkable, inviting public park that connects two future memorials.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:39 Shane Dettman
1:40
David Alpert:
You mention housing, which is a clear obvious idea. Are federal agencies generally receptive to having people actually live in part of their buildings? Is being a residential landlord something GSA is ready and willing to manage?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:40 David Alpert
1:41
Would you consider living in housing at a federal facility? I.e.: Newseum Residences

Yes

( 78% )
No

( 11% )
Unsure

( 11% )

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:41
1:47
David Zaidain:
Given the legality of federal property ownership and the fact that housing is such a new idea, it’s a challenge to push for this. But, NCPC thinks it’s an important concept and we discuss it in our Active Spaces Publication. There are good examples of how institutional type uses are integrating residential units (Newseum) and how Federal property can be retained but used for private purposes (Hotel Monaco). So, there is some movement in making this idea a reality.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:47 David Zaidain
1:48
[Comment From Adam LewisAdam Lewis: ]
What level of involvement does NCPC with the new DHS facility at St. Elizabeth’s? That is arguably one of the most prominent open areas in Washington and has magnificent views of the city. What types of considerations are being made preserve public access to the property?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:48 Adam Lewis
1:49
Shane Dettman:

NCPC was very much involved in the master planning process for the west campus of St. Elizabeths and continues to be involved in the design review of individual projects contained in the master plan. This process was carried out in close consultation with a host of federal and District agencies including the DC Office of Planning. As for public access to the campus, DHS has committed to maintaining public access to the historic civil war cemetery through scheduled tours.

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:49 Shane Dettman
1:50
David Alpert:
At the beginning, I asked about the planned modernization of the GSA headquarters. NCPC sent a little video about that:
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:50 David Alpert
1:51
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:51
1:53
David Zaidain:
In advancing this issue of federal building design and better public space, NCPC has been working with GSA’s Good Neighbor Program which is dedicated to improving federal buildings nationwide. They have been successful in improving design and putting public space to good use around federal buildings. Info is available here: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104461

and one of the recent success stories from this collaboration is the GSA Headquarters Building and the addition of ground floor retail. The video above illustrates this.

Thursday September 16, 2010 1:53 David Zaidain
1:54
David Alpert:
I really hope this comes to fruition!
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:54 David Alpert
1:54
David Alpert:
GSA clearly cares about good buildings, but how about other agencies that aren’t themselves about real estate?
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:54 David Alpert
1:54
[Comment From GuestGuest: ]
I’m curious how we can get those who control these spaces to care… [about activating their facades/plazas]. I think many feel it just isn’t their concern.
Thursday September 16, 2010 1:54 Guest
2:01
David Zaidain:
Most federal agencies are not involved in real estate, that is true. But, most have facility or real estate managers that are responsible for their properties. Having better federal buildings not only helps the surrounding community but also promotes a better workforce and this is something that the Administration recognizes and many agencies are beginning to understand.
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:01 David Zaidain
2:01
David Alpert:
Thanks. Before we stop, Adam Lewis wanted to follow up about the answer concerning public access at St. Elizabeth’s:
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:01 David Alpert
2:01
[Comment From Adam LewisAdam Lewis: ]
“Public access to historic civil war cemetery through scheduled tours” is bureaucratic speak for no public access. That’s like saying that the White House is open to the public, when it’s clearly not. Thanks for the clarification.
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:01 Adam Lewis
2:02
David Alpert:
Shane?
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:02 David Alpert
2:06
Shane Dettman:
To respond to the follow up comment regarding St. Elizabeths …

In any project that has a security component as well as a public access / amenity component we work hard to try to find an appropriate balance. With regard to St. Elizabeths, making the cemetery available to members of the public is not the ideal solution to public accessibility but it is a good start while still taking into consideration the security needs of DHS. Hopefully, in the future we might be able to identify a way to provide additional access to areas of the campus without overly compromising security. We might one day be able to visit historic areas of the campus or “the Point.” In general, in every security project NCPC works very closely with federal and District agencies to find a way to provide for the federal agency while protecting access to public space. This close coordination has led to big successes on recent projects such as Federal Office Building 8 in Southwest, DC.

Thursday September 16, 2010 2:06 Shane Dettman
2:07
David Alpert:
That’s all the time we have. Thanks so much to David and Shane for joining us today!
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:07 David Alpert
2:07
Shane Dettman:
Thanks to David for setting up this chat and to all the members of the public for participating.
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:07 Shane Dettman
2:08
David Zaidain:
Thanks to GGW for setting up the discussion of this important issue. We are hoping to shift the paradigm of our federal buildings to being open, accessible and exciting buildings that are befitting of America’s capital. We look foward to addressing this issue more as we develop the new Urban Design element for the Federal Elements of the Comp Plan. Thanks to everyone!
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:08 David Zaidain
2:09
David Alpert:
Feel free to post your reactions to these issues and to our chat in the comment section.
Thursday September 16, 2010 2:09 David Alpert
2:09

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.