The Washington Hilton, subject of storms of neighborhood controversy. Photo by JamesCalder on Flickr.

The Hilton Hotel is planning an as-of-right expansion to add a condominium tower in their east courtyard. Residents are concerned about loading (the loading docks are right on 19th Street, very close to homes, and with very little space for trucks to turn around), and the possible loss to the community of the pool (which will probably be moved and may become less public) and grounds (where the tower will go).

There is also the inevitable debate about traffic and parking. Will the condos bring more traffic? Will more people park in the neighborhood? Last night, the Adams Morgan ANC narrowly passed a resolution, introduced by commissioner Barry Weise (whose district contains expressing community opinions on the project. The resolution asked the Hilton to address the loading issues and preserve community access to the pool and grounds. And it had something to say about parking.

The ANC asked the Hilton to limit residential parking to one space per three units, which is still not extremely low but is lower than the zoning in that area ordinarily allows. The (sensible) rationale, as Weise explained it, is that they want the project to attract residents who plan not to own cars. The Dupont Circle Metro is not far, and the resolution encouraged having Zipcars in the garage.

On the other hand, the resolution encourages more parking for employees and guests. It’s not clear why the hotel couldn’t also be attracting guests who plan not to rent cars, or attract employees who use one of the many bus lines in the area rather than driving. Nonetheless, it’s a good step that an ANC endorsed less parking.

Not everyone agreed with that provision. Neighborhood resident and parking minimum reform opponent Ann Hargrove spoke up in opposition, and commissioner Emily Mechner introduced an unsuccessful amendment to strike the clause. But it passed nonetheless.

The Hilton’s parking situation bears strongly on the landmark application because historic structures can be exempt from parking requirements. Ironically, the desire to do the pro-urbanist thing (not build too much parking) is leading to an anti-urbanist process, of wrapping the Hilton’s street-deadening architecture in layers of preservationist amber.

If, indeed, historic preservation is the way to limit parking, it may be a worthwhile tradeoff. After all, nobody is going to be replacing the building with a better one anytime soon. More urbanist designs, like putting townhouses along T Street, ran afoul of logistical problems involving the underground garage, public space considerations, and neighborhood opposition. If a tower in the park is all we’ll get, at least it should be a tower in the park for people who don’t drive for their everyday commutes.