D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 10, r. 10-A914
Security has always been a factor in the design and development of Washington, DC, particularly around government and military facilities. The influence of security on the landscape has taken on new significance in the last five years, however. Some of the anti-terrorism measures implemented since 2001 have adversely affected the visual quality of the city. For example, the barriers around the city's monuments and closure of key streets around the US Capitol convey a harsh and militaristic image that detracts from the beauty of the city's most important structures. 914.1
The reality is that security-conscious design is here to stay. The challenge facing the city now is to accommodate security needs without conveying the image of a city under siege. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), General Services Administration, National Park Service, and other federal agencies have been advocating for design solutions that balance security and aesthetic needs; the Pennsylvania Avenue plaza north of the White House is a good example. Additional measures to integrate security measures more sensitively into the permanent design of streets and open spaces will be put in place by the federal government during the coming years. 914.2
Security needs also affect the design of many government buildings, and even the allowable mix of uses inside those buildings. Depending on their security designations, certain federal facilities are subject to very large setback requirements, limits on ground floor retail uses and public access, and restrictions on building openings and entrances. In some settings, these restrictions are at odds with the goal of creating pedestrian-friendly streets and animated public spaces. 914.3
Through coordinated planning and design, the District and NCPC are pursuing methods to plan buildings, streets, and other aspects of the public realm in a manner that responds to homeland security needs without impacting the vitality of street life. This may mean that uses with higher security requirements are located on federal enclaves like the Naval Security Station and Bolling Air Force Base, while those with lower security requirements may remain downtown. 914.4
The city's goals for crime prevention also have an important link to urban design. New development should be consciously designed to focus "eyes on the street" and avoid creating places conducive to criminal activity. This has been one of the major goals of the federal HOPE VI program and the city's New Communities Initiative. The elimination of confusing internal street patterns and dead ends, upgrading of pedestrian walkways, use of appropriate landscaping, and creation of appealing, well-lighted public spaces can all work to effectively enhance public safety. 914.5
Policy UD-3.2.1: Federal Collaboration
Collaborate with the federal government to plan for security and safety throughout the District without diminishing urban design quality and livability. Security needs should be considered from the beginning of the design process to ensure less intrusive and less disruptive solutions. 914.6
Policy UD-3.2.2: Location of High-Security Uses
Avoid the siting of projects with high security requirements in a manner that conflicts with the city's urban design goals. Consider locating highsecurity projects in campus type settings to avoid the negative impacts that might result from their location in areas with active street life. 914.7
Policy UD-3.2.3: Site Planning and Design Measures to Increase Security
Encourage architectural design and site planning methods that minimize perimeter security requirements and have a reduced impact on the public realm. Such measures include separating entryways, controlling access, "hardening" of shared walls, and the selection of more resilient building materials. 914.8
Policy UD-3.2.4: Security Through Streetscape Design
Develop and apply attractive, context-sensitive security measures in the design of streets, plazas, and public spaces. These measures should use an appropriate mix of bollards, planters, landscaped walls, vegetation, and street furniture rather than barriers and other approaches that detract from aesthetic quality. 914.9
Policy UD-3.2.5: Reducing Crime Through Design
Ensure that the design of the built environment minimizes the potential for criminal activity. Examples of preventive measures include adequate lighting, maintaining clear lines of sight and visual access, and avoiding dead-end streets. 914.10
A more attractive solution has been implemented at the Museum of the American Indian, where security and aesthetic needs are successfully balanced. Makeshift security measures such as jersey barriers adversely affect District streets and sidewalks.
Action UD-3.2.A: Security-Related Design Guidelines
Work collaboratively with the National Capital Planning Commission and other federal agencies to develop design measures which accommodate security needs without disallowing ground level retail and other public space amenities. Such measures should include solutions to meet parking and service access needs for ground level retail, and less obtrusive methods of "hardening" buildings and public space.
Action UD-3.2.B: Neighborhood Surveys
Conduct regular surveys of crime "hot spots" to identify where urban design issues such as inadequate lighting and poor circulation may be contributing to high crime rates. Implement measures to address these issues through the redesign of streets and public space. 914.12
Action UD-3.2.C: Design Review for Crime Prevention
Develop design standards for new neighborhoods, new communities, large tracts, and other major developments which reinforce crime prevention and security objectives. 914.13
See the Land Use and Transportation Elements for additional policies on street closures for security.
The provisions of Title 10, Part A of the DCMR accessible through this web interface are codification of the District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. As such, they do not represent the organic provisions adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia. The official version of the District Elements only appears as a hard copy volume of Title 10, Part A published pursuant to section 9 a of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1994, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; D.C. Official Code § 1 -301.66)) . In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions accessible through this site and the provisions contained in the published version of Title 10, Part A, the provisions contained in the published version govern. A copy of the published District Elements is available www.planning.dc.gov.
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 10, r. 10-A914