2007.1 This section summarizes the opportunities and challenges residents and stakeholders prioritized during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision. During large community workshops, residents shared their feedback on District-wide and neighborhood specific issues. Since the 2006 community workshops, however, some of the challenges and opportunities facing the community have evolved. The following summary does not reflect new community priorities or feedback from either amendment cycle but summarizes the most important issues during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan revision.

2007.2 Three Comprehensive Plan workshops took place in Mid-City during 2005 and 2006. These meetings provided an opportunity for residents to discuss both District-wide and neighborhood planning issues. The Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) provided an important voice in this discussion, particularly on the Future Land Use Map. There have also been many meetings in the community not directly connected to the Comprehensive Plan, but relating to other planning topics. These meetings covered topics such as the public realm and transportation improvements in Columbia Heights, revitalization of Georgia Avenue NW, redevelopment of McMillan Reservoir, parking and traffic issues in Adams Morgan, and the arts districts along U Street NW and in the greater Shaw area.

2007.3 The community delivered several key messages during these meetings, summarized below:

1. The unique character that defines Mid-City neighborhoods should be preserved as infill development takes place. The communities of the Mid-City welcome community reinvestment, but are worried that the rapid pace of redevelopment may be changing the fabric of the community too quickly. The loss of neighborhood diversity was the greatest concern expressed at almost every Comprehensive Plan meeting in the Mid-City area, and was raised in many different contexts: from the need for affordable housing to concerns about the influx of chain stores and loss of neighborhood businesses.
2. Housing opportunities should be increased for people at all income levels so that Mid-City can remain a diverse neighborhood. The District-wide rise in housing prices has particularly impacted Mid-City, as costs have soared beyond what many local residents can afford. Moderate-income families and lower-income residents are being priced out of the area, and there are concerns that the community is becoming affordable only to persons with high-incomes. Preserving the existing stock of affordable units is important, either through rehabilitation or replacement of existing

units with new affordable units. The type of new housing being built in the area should be more varied. In particular, more three- and four-bedroom units are needed to attract and retain families.

1. New condominiums, apartments, and commercial development should be directed to the areas that are best able to handle increased density, namely areas immediately adjacent to Metrorail stations or along high-volume transit corridors. These areas are generally located around 14th and Park Streets NW, along the 14th Street NW corridor, along U Street NW — especially around the Metro station, along 7th Street NW and Georgia Avenue NW — especially west of Howard University, and in the southeastern corner of the Planning Area near the New York Avenue Metro station. Mixed-use development, with multi-story housing above retail shops and services, is desirable in these locations and would reinforce the Mid-City's character as a vital, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood.
2. The row house fabric that defines neighborhoods like Adams Morgan, Columbia Heights, Pleasant Plains, Eckington, and Bloomingdale should be conserved. Although Mid-City includes six historic districts (Greater U Street, LeDroit Park, Mount Pleasant, Strivers' Section, Washington Heights, and Kalorama Triangle), most of the row houses in Mid-City are not protected by historic district designations. Some are even zoned for high-density apartments.
3. A variety of issues have arisen, including demolition and replacement with much larger buildings, the subdivision of row houses into multi-unit flats, and top story additions that disrupt architectural balance. Intact blocks of well-kept row houses should be zoned for row houses, and not for tall apartment buildings, and additional historic districts and/or conservation districts should be considered to protect architectural character.
4. The community is in need of additional parkland. Mid-City is the densest part of t Washington, DC, but the ratio of park acreage per resident is among the lowest in District. Rock Creek Park is a great resource, but is a long way from the eastern part of the Planning Area and is primarily a passive open space. The Planning Area has a shortage of active play fields and recreational facilities, especially east of 16th Street NW. In many cases, schools are the only open spaces in the neighborhood, but access to school grounds may be restricted, and the school facilities themselves are in need of improvement. Sites such as the McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration site offer the promise for additional neighborhood open space. New development there and elsewhere should set aside land for parks, while development along the area's commercial streets and around Metro stations should include pocket parks and plazas. Throughout the

community, innovative approaches such as land trusts and easements should be considered to improve open space access.

1. Language barriers should be broken so that more foreign-born residents can get an education, find suitable housing, find a job, and participate in community life and civic affairs. With a growing population of English language learners, the Planning Area needs alternative education options and better access to literacy and language programs. If residents are to fill the quality jobs to be created in the new economy, better vocational training and bilingual services are needed. Local public schools, charter schools, universities, and nonprofits should be integral partners in these efforts.
2. The arts should be recognized as an essential part of community life. While this is true in all parts of Washington, DC, it is especially true in Mid-City's multicultural neighborhoods. The Planning Area has been the home of many ethnic and racial groups for more than 100 years and has long been a center of creative expression and cultural diversity. The area should celebrate its past through heritage trails and historic exhibits, and celebrate its present through indoor and outdoor performance, art, and music. New cultural facilities should also be part of the area's future.
3. Better economic balance should be achieved in the neighborhood. The neighborhood centers on the west side of the Mid-City Planning Area are generally vibrant, with strong demand for commercial space. Neighborhood business districts on the east side, particularly along Georgia Avenue NW and North Capitol Street NW, are still facing challenges. There are numerous vacant and boarded up properties, along with concerns about fire safety, underused and abandoned properties, and crime. Commercial change is also an issue. Small corner stores and other businesses that are unique to the neighborhood are having a harder time getting by. The area's restaurants, ethnic establishments, and iconic neighborhood businesses are an important part of what defines this community. They should be strongly supported in the future.
4. Pedestrian safety, improved traffic operations, and parking management are all high priorities. Increased density within this already dense Planning Area creates busier streets—both for cars and for people. Despite its proximity to a Metro station, Columbia Heights will become more congested as 700 new housing units and 500,000 square feet of new retail space are opened. Parking demand will continue to exceed supply in Adams Morgan and Mount Pleasant. Commuter traffic along North Capitol Street NW and Florida Avenue NW will continue to burden side streets in Eckington and Bloomingdale. New solutions and strategies to

traffic management are needed. Increasing transit service and improving pedestrian safety are important parts of the equation, but they should not be the only parts.

1. Public facilities in Mid-City need improvement. Many of the area's schools, libraries, and recreation centers are outdated and do not meet the needs of the community. At the same time, residents are concerned about proposals to use private development to leverage public facility replacement. A key concern is that public facilities are not rebuilt at the expense of neighborhood open space, which is already in very short supply. While Mid-City has several new facilities, including the Girard Street Playground, the Columbia Heights Community Center, and Bell-Lincoln Multicultural Middle/High School, there are still unmet needs.
2. Mid-City needs greening. This Planning Area has a very high percentage of impervious surface coverage and lost much of its tree cover during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Tree planting is needed to reduce urban runoff, create shade, remove air pollutants, and create beauty in the neighborhoods. Future development should incorporate green roofs and other methods to reduce resource consumption, conserve energy and water, and be more environmentally-friendly.

SOURCE: District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; 31 DCR 1049 (March 9, 1984)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984, effective March 16, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-187; 32 DCR 873 (February 15, 1985)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-129; 37 DCR 55 (January 5, 1990)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989 NCPC-Recommended Amendments, and Closing of Public Alleys in Square 669, S.O. 88-452, Act of 1990, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-132; 37 DCR 2213 (April 6, 1990)); as amended by District Government Land Use Temporary Amendment Act of 1994, effective October 1, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-190; 41 DCR 5360 (August 12, 1994)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1994, effective October 6, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-193; 41 DCR 5536 (August 19, 1994)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Amendment Act of 1994, effective March 21, 1995 (D.C. Law 10-235; 42 DCR 30 (January 6, 1995)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 18, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-110; 43 DCR 530 (February 9, 1996)); as amended by Second Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 9, 1997 (D.C. Law 11-255; 44 DCR 1271 (March 7, 1997)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 1998, effective April 27, 1999 (D.C. Law 12-275; 46 DCR 1441 (February 19, 1999)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1999, effective April 12, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-91; 47 DCR 520 (January 28, 2000)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2006, effective March 8, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-300; 54 DCR 924 (February 2, 2007)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 2008, effective March 25, 2009 (D.C. Law 17-353; 56 DCR 1117 (February 6, 2009)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2010, effective April 8, 2011 (D.C. Law 18-361; 58 DCR 908 (February 4, 2011)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2021, effective August 21, 2021 (D.C. Law 24-20; 68 DCR 006918 (July 16, 2021)).