No the ANC Didn’t Approve Those Awnings

Last week, Wendy Gordon of the Georgetown Dish wrote a screed against the ANC and the Old Georgetown Board that was factually inaccurate and misguided to boot. GM wasn’t going to comment on it, but now the false information is spreading so it’s time to clear the record.

Gordon’s original article complained about the OGB rejecting awnings proposed by Serendipity 3 for their windows. In the article, Gordon states:

matching awnings would be installed on the two (count ‘em) windows on the M Street side of the building, two doors on the Wisconsin Avenue side of the structure,  and the recovering of the already existing awning over the main entrance to the building…The plan was presented and the votes counted.  No pushback from residents, and a unanimous vote to pass by the ANC 2E.  Resolution passed.  One more hurdle to go…the OGB.

That’s simply not what happened. In fact the ANC did express reservations about the window awnings and passed a resolution stating as much. Here’s the text of the resolution: “ANC 2E appreciates the concept of the awnings.  ANC 2E does want OGB to take a look at the awnings on the smaller windows to ensure that it does not mask historic fabric.  ANC 2E has no objection to the awnings over the doors.”

While that’s not exactly a resounding rejection of the window awnings, it is a clear expression of concern. And that’s normally how the ANC communicates with OGB; it expresses concern and leaves it up to the architectural and historical experts to decide.

But that’s not how Gordon sees it:

Fast forward to Friday’s OGB meeting.  Presentations were made.  The awnings should have been a shoo-in.  Historically, the OGB has usually approved projects with a resolution to go ahead attached.  But it seems something was missing at this vote though…the resolution by the ANC.      On top of that, an OGB member stated “We don’t allow bullnose awnings in Georgetown.”  Tom Burch, who was the acting commissioner of the ANC at the time the original resolution had passed, concurred.  Wait.  Was there not a unanimous vote by the ANC to pass this resolution?  Could the law have changed between Monday and Friday?  Doubtful—but one has to wonder how the anti-bullnose sentiment could be legal on Monday, but not on Friday?  And what of all those other buildings in the same area that have those awnings up as we speak?  One has to wonder…does this ordinance apply only to instances arbitrarily selected by the OGB?  One has to query…was a resolution not passed?  Why was it not introduced at the OGB gathering?

There are many things, both small and large, wrong with this paragraph:

• The OGB meeting was Thursday
• Historically the OGB has not simply rubber stamped the ANC’s opinion, it often goes against the ANC (as it did, for instance, with the second-to-last Apple store design)
• It’s Tom Birch, not Tom Burch
• And he was acting chairman, he’s always a commissioner
• As described above, nothing changed in the ANC’s position between Monday and Thursday
• Yes, design standards are applied on a case-by-case basis. For instance, there are bull-nose awnings on the Betsey Johnson store. But they were approved only after the OGB was comfortable they fit in with the building. It didn’t change the fact that the OGB is generally against such awnings, particularly when applied to rectangular windows like those in question.

Finally, Gordon ends:

No one is suggesting or even wants to jeopardize the beautiful and charming architecture of Georgetown…But let’s think about minor tyrannies; needless power struggles and blatant disregard of the democratic process.  I’m just sayin’

The point that Gordon seems not to grasp is that the OGB is not democratic. It’s a panel of experts that know a lot more about architecture and history than Gordon or GM combined. They have a mandate to make sure tourist traps don’t jeopardize the beautiful and charming architecture of a building like the one in question. And in this case they’re doing their job.