A two-block shuttle for "urban lifestyle" apartments?

Trilogy NoMa is a strange apartment complex.

To start with, the name is ridiculous. The buildings were built in a long-established neighborhood (Eckington [PDF], since 1830) that just happened to have some empty lots. The business improvement district (BID) to the south is called NoMa, and it includes a few of the commercially-zoned lots at the southernmost extent of Eckington. The developer decided to use the NoMa name for the complex, most likely because they felt it was a "brand" they could exploit.

The contact page for the complex, though, says these are "Apartments in Chinatown DC - Trilogy at Noma DC Chinatown" at the top of site. Clearly there is some confusion on the part of the ownership regarding where they made their investment. I wonder if they know the city and neighborhood well enough to know where they're actually located.

What "drove" me to write this post, though is the photo below:

That contact page touts the Walk Score for the apartment complex - a respectable 71. (Worth noting - the Transit Score is a 72 and the Bike Score is a fantastic 89!) It's questionable if the management really believes in that Walk Score, though, since they have a shuttle van to drive you the two blocks to the Metro station.

Sure, a shuttle service for handicapped residents might be necessary and a nice service for those who need it. But this van, dropping off passengers at the northern entrance of the NoMa station, wasn't equipped for wheelchair access, and the twenty-somethings disembarking from the van appeared to have no problem walking the few feet from the van to the turnstiles.

Lazy? Silly? A waste of fuel while the van idles at the curb? All of the above? All of the above.

To address bicycle crime, Metro PD should take it seriously

WMATA is trying to fight bicycle crime, the Examiner reported last week, and theft has declined somewhat this year. My experience with an a vandalized bike shows a few ways they can continue to improve.

On Thursday, September 22, on my way home from work and a community meeting, I stopped to pick up my bicycle at the New York Avenue Metro station. Nearby was another bicycle, with many of its parts missing, shown at right.

Crime needs to be reported, otherwise the police have no idea where they need to focus their attention. But when I called the Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD), the dispatcher told me that he couldn't take a report since I wasn't the bicycle owner.

I informed him that I had been able to do so before, and had called in multiple bicycles that had been similarly vandalized at that station. He promptly hung up on me.

The following Monday, while retrieving my bicycle after a day of work and community meetings, I ran into an MTPD officer at the station. He saw me approaching the bicycle racks and asked, "Is your bike still there?"

Sure, it was meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, but given the knowledge I have of what has been happening at the station and my most recent interaction with the MTPD dispatch, I didn't find it particularly funny. I told him, "Mine's fine, but I can't say the same for this guy," while pointing at the frame that remained locked up, sans wheels and gears, next to my bike.

The officer came over to look at it. He thought that the bike might have been stolen, locked up by a thief, and then vandalized by someone else. I told him about my attempt to call the crime in, and how the dispatcher rebuffed my plea for help. He mentioned that a sticker could be put on the bike (as in the photo below), then told me to have a good evening.

It's worth noting that the bicycle frame in the first photo was removed by Wednesday evening, but the one in the photo above has been there for weeks.

In the Examiner article, Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn blames the victims of these crimes for allowing their bikes to be stolen and vandalized. "Many buy expensive bikes but buy inexpensive locks," he says, and while personal observation tells me that there certainly are bicycles that haven't been properly secured at the Metro station, there is also a lack of seriousness on the part of Taborn's force regarding crime.

If the attitude from the top of the MTPD is dismissive of bicycle-related crime, it's not surprising to see the rest of the force serving beneath him being apathetic about it as well. That's a real shame, and it's something that I hope will change. Blaming the victim and not accepting help from civilians when it's offered will keep MTPD from being as effective as it could be.

Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.

DC turns blind eye to developer's potential sign infractions

Since Douglas Development acquired the Uline Arena, the company has added three large signs to the side of the building, strategically placed to catch the eyeballs of those on passing Metro, MARC, and Amtrak trains.

A look at DC's signage rules suggests these advertisements may not be legal. But they also may be profitable, and Douglas Development owes the city quite a bit in property taxes.

Is the city ignoring the offense for its own gain?

In 2009, years of effort to remove three billboards at the corner of New Jersey Avenue and P Street NW came to an end when the billboards were cut down with a welding torch. The event marked the conclusion of a long campaign by the residents of Shaw to remove what they saw as blight from a neighborhood street corner.

One of the lasting results of that fight was that it made DC residents aware of the list of "special signs" permitted by the District. The "Special Signs Inventory," maintained by DCRA, lists 32 authorized large-scale advertisements that aren't technically billboards, according to DC regulations, located on the sides of buildings.

The Uline Arena signs are not on that list. There has been a Douglas Development sign on the side of the building for as long as I can remember, surely to entice interested parties to inquire about available space in the building. Last year, when Carmine's opened in the Penn Quarter neighborhood, a large advertisement for the Italian restaurant appeared on the side of the arena, as well. A sign advertising FroZenYo turned up within the last couple weeks.

That's 3 large "special signs" located on the building. Is this legal? I contacted Douglas Development to ask them about the regulatory process required to place these signs, but did not receive a call back. If they reply, I'll be sure to post an update.

The signs aren't on the city's official list, so they certainly appear to flout the rules. However, as Michael Neibauer noted two weeks ago, Douglas Development carries a sizable property tax debt to the city. Perhaps DC doesn't mind looking the other way if this helps bring Douglas Development income that can be used to settle the tab.

Cross-posted at Greater Greater Washington.

"You can't take pictures of federal buildings"

I took these pictures yesterday evening on the way home. I had just read Philip Kennicott's architectural review of the United States Institute of Peace building on Constitution Avenue, where he mentioned that architect Moshe Safdie designed the ATF headquarters at Florida and New York Avenues as well. (Note to Mr. Kennicott and the Washington Post - the building is in Northeast, not Northwest.)

I figured that Mr. Safdie probably didn't intend the space in front of his building to be used as a parking lot for cars from Maryland, with patchy grass and dirt welcoming one to this edifice, and wanted to document the sad state of affairs.

And then something interesting happened right after I finished taking the photograph below. I was standing on the sidewalk in front of the McDonald's on 1st Street NE when the driver of a car exiting the parking lot waved me over. He was a security guard, and said in a stern voice, "You know that taking pictures of federal buildings is illegal."

I've never thought I needed to carry "The Photographer's Right" (PDF) with me before, but perhaps I should. I've read stories in DCist and the Washington Post regarding photography around federal buildings, but I didn't know the details and had to wing it with this gentleman.

I told him, "I'm sorry, you're wrong. I'm standing in public space and these are public buildings. I have the right to take whatever photos I want." Then I told him it's been well documented in the papers lately.

Surprisingly, he got a concerned look on his face, said, "Oh, I'm sorry," and drove away. I felt kind of excited with the result, but I wonder about how security guards are being trained. Clearly, many are still not being told the facts regarding the rights of photographers in public space.