Georgia AvenueBrightwood’s Road from the Past to the Future

Historic Resource Documentation and Preservation PlanUniversity of Maryland Historic Preservation Studio

Fall 2006

Georgia AvenueBrightwood’s Road from the Past to the Future

Historic Resource Documentation and Preservation Plan

University of Maryland Historic Preservation StudioFall 2006

The Brightwood Studio Team

Amy BolaskyGenevieve Courbois

Sharon GambleGabriela HarrisStefanie HetzkeChristina HiettKathy ManickeSusan Nolan

Stacy PattersonJonathan Pliska

Ben RinikerDarian Schwab

Faculty Advisor

Mary Konsoulis

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of Maryland and Mary Konsoulis for the opportunity to participate in the creation of Brightwood’s preservation plan.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the following individuals. Without their time, energy, insight, and dedication to Brightwood, our study would have lacked depth: Pastor Joseph

Daniels, Jr., Anita Hairston, Brian Lang, Tara Seabrook, and the residents of the Brightwood community. We would also like to thank the following organizations, whose staff and materials greatly contributed to our efforts: The Brightwood Community Association, DC Department of Parks and Recreation, DC Preservation League, DC Historic Preservation Office, DC Office of

Planning, Kiplinger Research Library of the Historical Society of Washington, DC, National Park Service, and the Washingtoniana Division of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library.

We wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their artistic contributions. Dan Lamb provided the detailed timeline reproduced on the inside of the front and back covers. The design for the capital and column of the Bank of Brightwood used throughout this plan is taken from a

graphite on bond sketch by Christina Hiett.

Table of ContentsChapter One…..The Journey Begins…..1

IntroductionStudy IssuesStakeholdersStudio TeamMethodology

Organization of the ReportGlossary

Chapter Two…..Neighborhood Character…..11Brightwood as Neighborhood & Community

Historical ContextAn Overview of the History of BrightwoodThe Path of Transportation in Brightwood

Important People in Brightwood’s Past

Chapter Three…..A Picture of Brightwood…..41Demographic Information

Current Survey ResultsCurrent Conditions on Georgia Avenue

Sense of Place

Chapter Four…..Land Use: Planning & Zoning Applicable to the Study Area…..51Federal Plans

District of Columbia PlansLand Use & Zoning

Economic Development within the Study Are

Chapter Five…..Saving Brightwood’s Past for Its Future…..63Inventory of Historic Resources

Tools for Preservation

Appendix A…..Map Chronology…..128

Appendix B…..Studio Team Survey…..138

Appendix C…..Transportation Enhancement Program Information…..140

Bibliography…..144

Image Credits…..155

CHAP

TER O

NETH

E JOU

RNEY

BEGI

NS

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

2 CHAPTER ONE

13th Street to 8th Street.

Over the course of its history, Brightwood has evolved from a farming community to rural retreat for the wealthy to an urban, middle-class neighborhood. It possesses historic churches and schools and is home to advocates of social change and justice. BCA is committed to continuing the tradition of activism within the neighborhood and to embracing its diverse heritage. Currently, however, the residents of Brightwood have been presented with preservation challenges that could threaten the community’s sense of place. While many in Brightwood consider their residential areas to be an ideal place to live, most agree that the commercial properties along Georgia Avenue are in need of redevelopment. Traffic, crime, and urban decay have taken a toll on this once-thriving business district. Along with the Beacon of Light Community,

of Missouri Avenue, and south of Aspen Street in northwest Washington, DC. These differ from the community’s traditional boundaries of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Aspen Street to the north, 16th Street and Rock Creek Park to the west, Georgia Avenue to the east, and Kennedy Street to the south. Because Georgia Avenue is the primary commercial thoroughfare within the traditional boundaries of the neighborhood, the study area examined in this report is Georgia Avenue from Kennedy Street in the south to Aspen Street in the north and includes the adjacent blocks from

Inc., a community development corporation, and the city of Washington, BCA wants to strengthen commercial development along Georgia Avenue but not at the expense of the neighborhood’s historic resources.

The fall 2006 studio class has studied the challenges facing present-day Brightwood and has produced this preservation plan in hopes that it will be used as a tool to manage change, improve the quality of life for those living in Brightwood, and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood’s many historic resources.

Introduction

Recognizing the pivotal role professional practice plays in education, the University of Maryland requires second-year students enrolled in its graduate program in historic preservation to participate in a semester-long historic preservation studio. The students are challenged to work with a community seeking to solve preservation problems. In using their newly-acquired expertise to confront real-life concerns, the students gain practical experience and contribute to the public understanding of historic preservation.

In the fall of 2006, the Brightwood Community Association (BCA), a neighborhood organization, became the client of the historic preservation studio. BCA serves residents living in the area west of Georgia Avenue, east of 16th Street, north Figure1: Brightwood Studio Study Area

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER ONE 3

!" Utilize historic preservation to encourage economic development along Georgia Avenue in Brightwood.

Stakeholders

It is the hope of the studio team that this preservation plan will provide a useful tool for each of Brightwood’s stakeholders. If neighborhood residents and business owners are not yet aware of Brightwood’s rich history, this plan will introduce them to the people, places, events, and themes that have shaped the places where they now live and work. Likewise, members of Emory Beacon of Light, Inc., a community development corporation, and the Brightwood Community Association have repeatedly expressed their desire to attract tourists to the area. Showcasing Brightwood’s historic resources provides these organizations with a means of attracting out-of-town visitors as

Study Issues

This study focused on two primary themes: sense of place and revitalization through historic preservation. Determining residents’ sense of place is necessary to upholding the neighborhood’s character. Historic preservation provides an excellent framework for revitalization while maintaining neighborhood character. In preparing a preservation plan for Brightwood, the study team formulated the following three questions to guide its research:

!" What are the study area’s historic resources?

!" What are the elements of neighborhood character?

!" How can preservation play a role in development while maintaining neighborhood character, specifically the role of preservation in knitting

Georgia Avenue back into the neighborhood?

In order to answer these questions, the studio team developed four goals for the preservation plan that would ultimately aide the team in developing its recommendations:

!" Identify, protect, and promote the study area’s historic resources.

!" Foster a sense of place that reflects the neighborhood’s character.

!" Cultivate an understanding and appreciation of the study area’s history, architecture, and cultural landscapes.

well as the thousands who commute up and down Georgia Avenue each day. By virtue of property ownership and community activism, there are also several additional active stakeholders in Brightwood. The studio team hopes that these agencies and groups will find this plan informative, interesting, and insightful. They include:

!" Advisory Neighborhood Council!" Brightwood Community Association!" DC Department of Parks and

Recreation!" DC Office of Planning!" DC Preservation League

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

4 CHAPTER ONE

technology firms, museums, historic sites, on Wall Street, and in preservation consulting. Many students serve as graduate assistants while in the program. Students are also actively involved as members of preservation organizations and review boards.

This highly-skilled and diverse group, with a broad spectrum of academic and professional experiences, believes that this preservation plan will be of great benefit to the citizens of Brightwood, Ward 4, and the District of Columbia.

Methodology

This report is the combined efforts of students enrolled in HISP 650 Preservation Studio from the University of Maryland’s graduate program in historic preservation. The studio team has spent several months utilizing various research techniques and

!" Emory Beacon of Light, Inc.!" National Capital Planning

Commission!" National Park Service!" Washington Interfaith Network

Studio Team

The studio team is comprised of 12 students in the University of Maryland’s graduate program in historic preservation. Students have completed the core courses of the program which include: historic preservation theory, research methods and documentation, building materials, planning and policy, historic preservation law, preservation economics, and an internship. They have also taken electives including: heritage tourism, land use law, preservation research and development, city and regional economic development planning, social and ethnic issues in preservation, architectural

history, industrial preservation and re-use, archaeology, public houses as community spaces, landscape architecture, the English landscape and country house, and urban planning.

The students represent a wide variety of academic backgrounds with undergraduate and graduate degrees in history, museum studies, engineering, business, education, art history, zoology, English, American studies, and interior design. Professionally, they have worked in architectural and interior design firms, at public and private schools, major

resources to identify, analyze, and address the issues facing the Brightwood community located in northwest Washington, DC. The team began the project with an initial site visit on September 5, 2006. At this time, the team was introduced to members of the Brightwood Community Association, Emory Beacon of Light, Inc., and Emory United Methodist Church. Members of these groups provided an exceptional introduction to the study area and were invaluable as community contacts over the course of this project.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER ONE 5

it wants in the future, the team produced a survey and distributed it to church attendees, community group members, and pedestrians along Georgia Avenue.

During both phases, the team frequently evaluated its information to better comprehend the issues facing the Brightwood community and ultimately determined four goals for the preservation plan. Relying on its research and goals, the team formulated practical recommendations that will allow Brightwood to grow and revitalize while protecting and enhancing its character and historic resources.

Organization of the Report

This preservation plan for Brightwood continues with chapter two which presents Brightwood’s neighborhood character and the history of its development.

The first phase of research focused on understanding Brightwood’s history and its evolution into the community that exists today. Six distinct historical research themes were developed: important historical events, transportation, institutions, influential people, development, and open space and recreational attractions. The Washingtoniana Division of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Public Library, the Kiplinger Research Library of the Historical Society of Washington, DC, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress were instrumental in providing photographs, building permits, census records, maps, city directories, and miscellaneous documents in vertical files. Newspaper articles relevant to Brightwood’s history were obtained on microfilm archives and through the ProQuest digital database. The studio team also referred to articles, books, and graduate student theses to uncover the community’s history and to

locate significant historic resources.

The second phase of the project included compiling an inventory of historic sites and then designating them as either landmarks or contributing structures. Various programs and development plans that affect the study area were identified and reviewed. An in-depth examination of the community’s physical layout was conducted using maps, and alterations in road names and locations were recorded. To gain a better understanding about how the community characterizes itself and what

The third chapter addresses present-day Brightwood including demographics, results of recent surveys, and a description of current conditions on Georgia Avenue. The fourth chapter looks at zoning regulations and plans currently affecting Brightwood. The fifth chapter presents existing historic resources within the community and the tools that Brightwood can utilize to preserve its historic resources while fostering community development. Multiple appendices at the end of the document include maps and other important information relating to Brightwood. There is also an extensive list of

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

6 CHAPTER ONE

architecture, or physical development.4

Historic Landmark: A district, site, building, structure, or object of exceptional historic, architectural, or archaeological significance to the community.

Historic Main Street Program: The Main Street Program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation relies on “a community-driven, comprehensive methodology used to revitalize older, traditional business districts.” It provides a “common-sense way to address the variety of issues and problems that face traditional business districts.” The Main Street Program “advocates a return to community self-reliance, local empowerment, and the rebuilding of traditional commercial districts based on their unique assets: distinctive architecture, a pedestrian-friendly environment, personal service, local ownership, and a sense of community.”5

sources.

Glossary*

Adaptive Use: The process of converting a building to a use other than that for which it was designed, e. g. converting a school into apartments.1

Cultural Landscape: “A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife and domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.”2

District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites: The inventory of officially designated historic properties in Washington, DC, subject to the Historic Protection Act of 1978.3

Fort Circle Parks System: A major component

of the park system of the District of Columbia recommended by the McMillan Plan and acquired by the National Capital Planning Commission. Now managed by the National Park Service, this ring of Civil War defenses, which includes Fort Stevens in Brightwood, is connected by a ribbon of parks. This corridor features scenic hills as well as landscaped and natural areas.

Historic District: An area within specific boundaries with a concentration of related sites, buildings, structures, and/or objects related by past events or aesthetically by plan,

Historic Preservation: A discipline that encompasses a broad range of activities related to the preservation and conservation of the built environment by physical and environmental methods.6

Historic Resource: “Any building, structure, object, or collection or grouping thereof and their associated sites and any historic landscapes, which have been designated as important to history, architecture, archaeology or culture of an area by a local, state or federal governmental jurisdiction.”7

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER ONE 7

National Register is administered by the National Park Service under the Secretary of the Interior. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.10

Overlay Zone: “A zone or district created by the local legislature for the purpose of conserving natural resources or promoting certain types of development. Overlay zones are imposed over existing zoning districts and contain provisions that are applicable in addition to those contained in the zoning law.”11

Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic resource.12

Inclusionary Zoning: A means by which local governments can encourage/require developers to build affordable housing in low income areas.8

Interpretation: “The educational methods by which the history and meaning of historic sites, buildings, objects, districts and structures are explained by use of docents, leaflets, tape recordings, signs, film and other means.”9

Integrity: The degree to which a historic resource remains intact, undamaged, and retains those qualities that contribute to its significance.

National Capital Region: The District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George’sCounties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in

Virginia; and all cities now or hereafter existing in Maryland or Virginia within the geographic area bounded by the outer boundaries of the combined area of said counties.

National Register of Historic Places: The official list of the nation’s historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. The

Reconstruction: The physical rebuilding of all or part of a damaged or destroyed historic resource.

Rehabilitation: The act of returning a historic resource to a functional new use through repair and new construction but maintaining as much of the original historic fabric as possible.

Restoration: The act of returning a historic resource to a certain period of its history by accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as they appeared at a

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

8 CHAPTER ONE

scenic beautification, and to the mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff.”15

* Glossary adapted from The Old Southwest: Historic Resource Documentation and Preservation Plan, University of Maryland Historic Preservation Studio, Fall 2005.

Endnotes1. William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time:

The History and Theory of Preservation in America, 215.

2. National Park Service, “Historic Landscape Initiative.”

3. Historic Preservation Review Board, Notice of Final Rulemaking, “Glossary,” 9.

4. Murtagh, 217.5. National Trust for Historic

Preservation, National Trust Main Street Center, “Main Street: Revitalizing Your Commercial

particular period of time. This process may involve replicating historic materials, removal of features from other periods of history, and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.13

Sense of Place: The degree to which a physical locality is perceived as unique and special by those who inhabit it. “People develop a ‘sense of place’ through experience and knowledge of a particular area. A sense of place emerges through knowledge of the history, geography and geology of an area, its flora and fauna, the legends of a place, and a growing sense of the land and its history after living there for a time.”14

Significance: The qualities held by a historic resource that make it worthy of preservation, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and restoration. These qualities include noteworthy contributions to American

history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.

Transportation Enhancements: “Transportation-related activities that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation’s intermodal transportation system. The [federal] transportation enhancements program provides for the implementation of a variety of non-traditional projects, with examples ranging from the restoration of historic transportation facilities, to bike and pedestrian facilities, to landscaping and

District.” 6. Ernest Burden, Illustrated Dictionary of

Architecture, 168.7. San Francisco Department of

Planning, A Preservation Element: San Francisco Preservation Bulletin #17, “Glossary.”

8. City of Evanston, IL, Evanston’s Affordable Housing Future, “Glossary.”

9. Murtagh, 217.10. National Park Service, “The National

Register of Historic Places.”11. Land Use Law Center of the Pace

University School of Law, “Universal

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER ONE 9

Glossary of Land Use Terms and Phrases.”

12. National Park Service, “Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (As Amended and Annotated).”

13. Ibid.14. Making a Sense of Place, Inc., “What

Is a Sense of Place?”15. Federal Highway Administration,

“Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions: Transportation Enhancement Program.”

CHAP

TER TW

ONEI

GHBOR

HOOD

CHARA

CTER

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

12 CHAPTER TWO

members have long united to advocate for and defend their shared values and beliefs. The Brightwood Citizens’ Association, an early community booster, was formed in the 19th century to lobby Washington’s government to improve the roads leading in and out of Brightwood. A century later in the 1980s, the current Brightwood Community Association, using input from the residents, successfully led a grassroots movement to remove adult entertainment bars and pornography stores from the neighborhood.

Brightwood, as both a neighborhood and a community, has changed significantly over time. What began as an agricultural village gradually evolved into the urban Washington, DC neighborhood that Brightwood is today. Likewise, members of the community have changed over time, from wealthy 19th century white landowners, to predominately black middle-class residents

however, does not create a community, and a sense of community is not present in all cases where buildings, roads, and amenities converge. A community requires people, but more than just their physical presence. Creating and maintaining community requires commitment from residents to identify with one another and band together for their common good.

Community can be defined as a group of people living in the same region and interacting with each other.2 Brightwood is a community rich with history, and its

following World War II, and finally the current mix of whites, African Americans, Asian Americans, African immigrants and Latin Americans who call the neighborhood home today. In recent years, real estate prices have soared in the Washington, DC area; however, Brightwood is still considered an affordable enclave. This affordability, relative to these prices, has attracted a new influx of residents. Because of its growing racial, ethnic, and economic diversity, Brightwood’s community identity is in a state of flux.

Above all, this preservation plan seeks

Two Roads as One: Brightwood as Neighborhood and Community

Brightwood is both a Washington, DC neighborhood and a community. These two terms, neighborhood and community, however, are not interchangeable. A neighborhood is by definition place-based. The borders of the Brightwood neighborhood are difficult to clearly define. According to the Brightwood Community Association, Brightwood is within the boundaries of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Aspen Street to the north, 16th Street and Rock Creek Park to the west, Georgia Avenue to the east, and Kennedy Street to the south.1 This area largely represents the studio team’s project site. It contains all of the physical elements that make Brightwood into a neighborhood: housing, businesses, streets, recreational facilities, and open space. This infrastructure,

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 13

to provide all interested parties with a clear understanding of Brightwood’s history and historic resources to enable both Brightwood’s neighborhood and community to continue to grow and develop.

Historical Context

When the American Revolution ended in 1783, the new government of the United States met in New York and later Philadelphia. The fierce rivalry among the states to be the home of the capital city led the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to establish a new federal district to serve as the capital. This capital was to be governed by Congress and independent of any state. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton negotiated a compromise that resulted in the selection of a southern site for the capital.3

The actual site of the District of

the planning, design, and acquisition of property in the federal district and capital city. The commissioners named the new capital the “City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia.”4

George Washington appointed Peter Charles L’Enfant to design a plan for the city. His layout was a grid centered on the United States Capitol and crossed by diagonal avenues named after the states of the union. The points where these avenues intersected with north-south and east-west streets would become circles and plazas. In 1792 Washington dismissed L’Enfant from federal service because of his conflicts with the commissioners and hired Andrew Ellicott to complete the design and planning of the federal city. The city’s grid pattern consists of numbered streets running north-south and lettered streets that run from east to west.5

Columbia was chosen by George Washington who lived at his nearby Mount Vernon plantation. The Residence Bill of 1790 formally established the District of Columbia on land given to the federal government by the states of Maryland and Virginia. The existing towns of Georgetown and Alexandria were included in the new district, and the remainder of the territory was subdivided into Washington City and Washington County on the Maryland side of the Potomac River and Alexandria County on the Virginia side of the river. In 1791 Washington appointed three commissioners to supervise

The citizens living within the boundaries of the federal capital soon grew dissatisfied with a city government controlled by Congress. In 1802 after a series of protests and meetings, Congress granted a municipal charter that made Washington an incorporated city and gave voters the right to elect a local legislature called the council. The local government also included a mayor appointed by the President of the United States.6

In 1846 the area of the Ditrict south of the Potomac River was returned

Historical Names of Brightwood Roads in Chronological Order

Georgia Avenue 7th Street Turnpike7th Street RoadBrightwood AvenueGeorgia Avenue

Colorado Avenue Blagden’s Mill RoadPiney Branch Road14th Street RoadColorado Avenue

Missouri Avenue Milkhouse Ford RoadShepherd RoadConcord AvenueMissouri Avenue

Military Road no change

Rock Creek Ford Road Milkhouse Ford Road (west of Georgia Avenue)Rock Creek Ford Road

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

14 CHAPTER TWO

An Overview of the History of Brightwood

Plotting the Route: Early Brightwood

When the first European settlers moved into what would become Brightwood, the area was home to two groups of Native Americans, the Anacostank and Mattapantient, as shown on the John White map of 1585 and the John Smith map of 1608.10 James White, the earliest known European settler in the region, received a royal grant of 536 acres in 1772. Robert Lamar Beall, another early settler, owned 338 acres of land just north of White’s plantation.11 Yet another prominent land-owner, Colonel John Tayloe, called his large tract of land, just south of present-day Brightwood, Petworth. He kept a stable of racehorses and laid out a racetrack. This was most likely the start of formal horseracing in the Brightwood area,12 a tradition that would

to Virginia. This “retroceded” land became known as Alexandria County, Virginia. A large part of this land near the river belonged to George Washington Parke Custis and would later become Arlington National Cemetery.7

In the mid-19th century, developers began creating suburbs in Washington County. In 1871 Georgetown, Washington City, and Washington County were absorbed into a new territory headed by a governor and a council appointed by the President, a popularly-elected house of delegates, and a non-voting representative to Congress. The territory’s second governor, Alexander Robey Shepherd, gained a reputation as an extravagant spender and political manipulator. His ambition was to make Washington a city of opulence and luxury by paving streets and sidewalks, installing streetlights, and introducing electrical

systems. These endeavors bankrupted the city and caused Congress to abolish the territorial government in favor of a board of three commissioners appointed by the President.8 The Organic Act of 1878 made the commissioner system permanent and obligated the federal government to pay half of the District’s expenses. Washington would not have home rule again for almost 100 years. In 1973 Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act which allowed the citizens of Washington to directly elect a city council and mayor.9 This form of government continues today.

last until the beginning of the 20th century. Many other farmers settled on land in the area harvesting produce for the developing city of Washington.

By the early 1800s, it was apparent that a direct route connecting Rockville, Maryland, and Washington City was needed. Construction on what was to become the 7th Street Turnpike began in 1818 under the direction of the Rockville and Washington Turnpike Company. The company erected tollgates as a way to pay for the road, and one was located near the W.B. Bell property.13

Figure 2: 1861 A. Boschke Topograohical Map Indicating Location of 7th Street Turnpike Tollgate

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 15

This tollgate was to serve as the point from which Brightwood would grow.

The Road Laid: The Growth of Brightwood to 1860

By the 1850s, Brightwood remained predominantly agrarian, with property owners holding large tracts of land. Most of Brightwood’s residents were farmers or worked in agricultural occupations. The crossroads of the 7th Street Turnpike, Piney Branch Road, and Milkhouse Ford Road (now Rock Creek Ford Road) created a natural place for businesses to develop. (See maps in Appendix A.) In her study “Brightwood: Its Development and Suburbanization, 1800-1915,” Katherine Grandine wrote, “Initially a stopping place for travelers, it [Brightwood] gradually grew to provide services to farmers who had also been attracted to the area by the turnpike.”14

In 1859 a new racetrack opened west of the 7th Street Turnpike, dubbed the Crystal Spring Racetrack. It was located near where 14th and 16th Streets cross Kennedy Street today. Throughout its history, the track was known by several names: Brightwood Trotting Park, Piney Branch Course, and Brightwood Driving Park. A stagecoach ran from downtown Washington City to the track twice each day and three times on Sunday during the summer. The racetrack encompassed 15 acres and included the Piney Branch Hotel and a tavern.16

By 1860 Brightwood was also home to a thriving, free African American community known as Vinegar Hill. Founded by freed slaves, the settlement first began around 1820. Unfortunately, few records exist regarding Vinegar Hill and its inhabitants. Much of what is known comes from 19th and 20th century recollections. Two African

By the mid-1800s, a small, separate community had formed. Its economy had strengthened, and it had grown sufficiently to require its own post office. This post office was established as the Oak Grove Post Office on March 12, 1856. Later, Lewis Burnett’s road house became home to the post office, and its name was changed to Brighton. This name, however, was often confused with the town of Brighton, Maryland. So in 1861, Postmaster Lewis Burnett and Archibald White, a descendent of James White, renamed the post office Brightwood.15

Americans have been documented as owning property in the area: M. Butler and Elizabeth Thomas. Based on the locations of these properties and the location of the school for black children depicted on the 1892 Hopkins map,17 Vinegar Hill was most likely located on Milkhouse Ford Road (later Rock Creek Ford Road), west of the 7th Street Turnpike.

A Major Roadblock: Brightwood in the Civil War

At the outset of the Civil War, Washington, DC sat almost completely undefended, with only one fortification in

Figure3: Hotel at Brightwood Trotting Park

Figure 4: Horse Racing at Brightwood Trotting Park

Figure 5: Location of Brightwood Trotting Park on 1903 Baist Real Estate Map

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

16 CHAPTER TWO

soldiers who constructed the fort, it was later enlarged and on April 1, 1863, renamed Fort Stevens in honor of Brigadier General Isaac Ingalls Stevens, who was killed at the Battle of Chantilly, Virginia, on September 1, 1862.20

Much of the land on which Fort Stevens was constructed belonged to Emory Chapel, known today as Emory United Methodist Church. The site was selected for fortification because the church’s property sat upon a hill giving the Union Army an advantage over Confederate attackers. Once the fort was occupied by troops, the sanctuary served as a magazine. The building was eventually disassembled, and the materials were used by the army, according to a 1902 Washington Post article that recounted the congregation’s contribution to the Civil War.21

place to protect the national capital. The War Department made no plans to expand the city’s defenses despite its location between Virginia and Maryland, the former in open rebellion and the latter with strong Southern sympathies. The Union leadership was jolted out of this complacency by the army’s defeat at the First Battle of Manassas, fought on July 21, 1861. Six days after the Union defeat at Manassas, Major General George B. McClellan assumed command of the troops in the vicinity of Washington and immediately ordered the erection of a more formidable fortification system. His disappointment in the capital’s security was obvious as he found that nowhere around Washington “were the dispositions for defense such as to offer a vigorous resistance to a respectable body of the enemy, either in the position and numbers of the troops or the number and character of the defensive works.”18

By early August 1861, many of the 68 defensive sites had been chosen, and construction rapidly progressed. The building of these defenses resulted in the clear-cutting of the majority of the forested land around Washington, as well as the seizure of significant amounts of private property. One of these strongholds, Fort Massachusetts, “was built to defend the approaches to Washington from the 7th Street Pike (now Georgia Avenue) which was then the main thoroughfare from the north into Washington.”19 Named for the Massachusetts

Many citizens in Brightwood made sacrifices to help the war effort, perhaps none more than Elizabeth “Aunt Betty” Thomas, a free African American woman. The Union Army removed her furniture from her home, razed the house, and seized her land for a necessary fort expansion. According to her later reports, the basement of her home became a second magazine. Thomas spoke about her experience in an 1892 interview, “I was crying, as was my six-months old child which I had in my arms, when a tall slender man, dressed in black, came up and said to me: ‘It is hard, but you shall reap a great

Figure 7: Rendered Plan of Fort Stevens During the Civil War

Figure 6: Approximate Location of Vinegar Hill on 1892 Hopkins Real Estate Map

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 17

reward.’ It was President Lincoln.”22

Washington’s defenses were tested during the war at the 1864 Battle of Fort Stevens. In an attempt to seize the capital city and then march south to free Confederate prisoners at Point Lookout in Maryland, General Jubal Early led an approximately 20,000 man attack on Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. Initially, the Confederate Army believed the Washington defenses to be manned only by militia and expected an easy victory. The Union lines, however, had been strengthened with seasoned veterans from the 25th New York Cavalry, and the 98th, 102nd, and 139th Pennsylvania Volunteers.23 A battle and Union victory ensued. President Abraham Lincoln was present at the fort and was fired upon by Confederate sharpshooters, making him the only sitting president to come under enemy fire during war time.

her curly hair was.” She also remembered her family’s home being burned to prevent Confederate sharpshooters from occupying the property. Years later, her husband, a Brightwood merchant, sued the government unsuccessfully for restitution of her family’s lost home.26 Another property owner affected by the battle at Fort Stevens was Matthew Gault Emery, whose house stood at the current site of Emery Park. During the war, his property was used for Union soldier housing and as a signal station.27

One-half mile north of Fort Stevens and just over one acre in size, Battleground National Cemetery was established shortly after the Battle of Fort Stevens as the burial site for 40 of the 59 Union soldiers killed in the clash. The federal government formally acquired title to the property on August 1, 1868, when the War Department was forced to pay landowner James Mullory $2,650.35

There is no doubt that the building of Fort Stevens and the subsequent battle had an impact on Brightwood’s citizens.24 Years after the war, Brightwood residents recalled Confederate snipers firing at not only soldiers but also at civilians living near the fort.25 Annie Osborn, a local resident, remembered meeting President Lincoln when he visited the fort in 1864. According to her 1948 obituary, though only a child at the time, Osborn was impressed by her brief encounter with the President who had complemented her on “how pretty

in compensation. The soldiers’ bodies had contaminated his adjacent spring, and he felt that the land was no longer suitable for his planned homestead.28 Mullory was upset by the seizure of his land, calling it an “arbitrary Stretch of power, unheard of in the history of any Country, even the most despotic,” and complaining that, “The land you took from me without even consulting me on the subject and on which you erected the present graveyard, is the very center and on the highest part of the lot…”29 Throughout the remainder of the 19th century and into the 20th, both Fort Stevens and Battleground

Figure 8: Detachment of Company K, 3rd Massachusetts, Heavy Artillery, by Guns at Fort Stevens

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

18 CHAPTER TWO

and two-story covered porch on the front. Its expansive grounds, now Emery Park, were described as “having picturesque summer houses, trellises and arbors for vines, birdhouses, an old sundial, and a head of cannon balls...around the grounds bloom all the flowering shrubs and plants which one might expect to find in such a romantic place.”31

Brightwood was becoming the type of neighborhood that attracted prominent Washingtonians, such as physicians Joseph Ford Thompson and Charles G. Stone and educator Washington E. Nalley. Dr. J. Ford Thompson was a well-respected surgeon who had served at military hospitals during the Civil War and in 1878 became president of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia. His estate extended along Piney Branch Road to Whittier Street on the north side of Brightwood. Dr. Thompson’s

Avenue (formerly 7th Street Road) near Emory United Methodist Church. The old school on Military Road became the school for black children, and the schoolhouse on Vinegar Hill was razed. The present Military Road School at 1375 Missouri Avenue was built in 1912 to provide a basic, well-rounded education for African American children.30

After the Civil War, Brightwood was known as a place of beauty where people came for recreation and to build country homes. Georgia Avenue specifically was the site of many of these country estates. Typically, these houses were wood-framed, two to three stories high, and featured large porches. Although constructed prior to the Civil War, the estate of Matthew Gault Emery, known as Emery Place, was an example of a country estate. The residence was a four-story, French Empire-style frame structure featuring a mansard roof, cupola,

National Cemetery were preserved and memorials erected to honor those Union soldiers who fell in the battle.

The Road Broadens: Brightwood After the War, 1865-1888

In the years following the Civil War, the Brightwood community continued to grow. In 1864 Congress announced that Washington County, of which Brightwood was a part, should have public schools for both white and black children. A two-room frame school for white children was begun in 1866 on Military Road. A school for black children began in a former military barracks about the same time on what was to become Rock Creek Ford Road at Vinegar Hill. In 1879 a new school for white children was built on the 7th Street Turnpike. This brick school was quickly replaced in 1888 with a new four-room school on Brightwood

Figure 9: Battleground National Cemetery, circa 1869 Figure 10: Location of First School for White Children Figure 11: Location of First School for Black Children

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 19

estate included stables and a two-story, three-bay wood frame house with a one-story wraparound porch. Dr. Charles G. Stone was a prominent Washington surgeon who served as a physician for the poor in the Brightwood community. His house, located at 5726 Georgia Avenue, was a two-story frame house with a one-story front porch. This house had extensive decorative features, including a two-story cupola extending over the front door. This property was razed and became the site of Posin’s Bakery and Delicatessen in 1947.

Washington Edwin Nalley was a lifelong and well-known resident of Washington, having taught school there for 34 years. He was the Principal of Brightwood Elementary School and was also a Mason in the Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, where he was Master of the Lodge in 1891.32 His home, located at 5722 Georgia Avenue, was a two-story, three-bay wood frame house

capital. Old roads were shifted, widened, and renamed. Seventh Street Turnpike became 7th Street Road in 1871 and then became Brightwood Avenue in the late 1880s. Washington, DC’s population grew, and the need for improved transportation became obvious. Stage coaches were slow, and all too often Brightwood Avenue was impassible. Citizens’ groups lobbied and petitioned both the city and federal governments for improvements in transportation.

Largely in response to these demands, the Brightwood Railway Company, licensed by Congress in 1888, began construction of a route along Brightwood Avenue from Boundary Street to Brightwood. At first the line employed horse drawn streetcars. Later, the advent of electric models significantly increased Brightwood’s appeal. In her thesis, Katherine Grandine wrote, “The easy access to downtown by carriage

with a wraparound porch. It featured a center bay window on the second floor with an attic gable above it. This location is now the site of the “Easy Buy Mattress & Furniture” store at 5722 Georgia Avenue.

The Road Realigns: The Suburbanization of Brightwood, 1888-1915

By 1888, Washington, DC had expanded into the surrounding countryside, and Brightwood changed from a rural village to a neighborhood within the national

or public transportation increased the attractiveness of Brightwood for persons engaged as government employees, skilled craftsmen, and, many times, self-employed businessmen.”33 As Brightwood grew so did the economy and the character of its main thoroughfare. Because of the increased traffic on Brightwood Avenue, businesses opened to support the growing neighborhood.

During this period, the area known as Brightwood became smaller due to the sale of some of the larger properties. In 1887, the Tayloe family sold their plantation which was

Figure 14: Streetcar Horses in Front of a Brightwood Park House

Figure 13: Home of Washington E. Nalley, circa 1923

Figure 12: Home of Dr. Charles G. Stone, circa 1935

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

20 CHAPTER TWO

now 5760 Georgia Avenue

What a history of achievements for the Brightwood Avenue Citizens’ Association! …The fire company on one side, your new granolithic sidewalk on the other, the rapid approach of the sewer up Brightwood Avenue in the foreground, and the city very obviously advancing in blocks in the background make Brightwood one of the most progressive looking suburbs of Washington, and with a better prospect of being urban in the reasonable future than other more speculative localities.36

The active citizens of Brightwood worked hard to better their community. In 1900 Louis P. Shoemaker, then president of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association,

subdivided into the Petworth neighborhood. In 1890 Congress purchased part of the nearby valley around Rock Creek for a park and zoo, thus further decreasing the size of Brightwood. The economic depression of 1893 delayed the development of Petworth and Brightwood for years. As a result, subdivisions in the area attracted the middle class rather than the truly wealthy. According to Katherine Grandine, “men with less financial means began to invest in smaller parcels of land to develop.”34 One such parcel was that of Archibald White, a descendant of James White. In 1891 White sold 82 acres for what he thought would become a university. Unfortunately, the plans fell through, and the land was chopped into smaller and smaller building lots. This new development, located at the southern boundary of Brightwood, was called Brightwood Park. By 1893-1894, Diller B. Groff owned two-thirds of the lots in Brightwood Park. Real

estate developers William Herron and Daniel Ramey promoted lots for sale in Brightwood by offering “carriages, buckboards, and other vehicles” at the service of potential buyers.35

Development in Brightwood was also furthered by the formation of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association. Formed in 1891, the goals of this organization were to gain recognition for the area and to lobby for its improvement. The success of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association was made obvious in an 1897 address by William Van Zandt Cox at the dedication of the new firehouse at what is

touted Brightwood as a place where land could still be purchased for $2,000-$2,500 per acre compared with almost $45,000 an acre elsewhere in Washington. He also was influential in bringing Walter Reed Army Hospital to the area.37 Charles C. Glover, another significant resident in the early 1900s, was president of Riggs National Bank as well as a land investor in Brightwood around 16th Street.38 He lobbied Congress for money to improve Rock Creek Park. In 1905 Washington developer Henry Wardman, known for building middle-class housing, began work on the first of several

Figure 15: House of the Archibald White Family, circa 1950

Figure 16: Fire Engine Company 22

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 21

projects in Brightwood that included houses in Brightwood Park and later Fort Stevens Ridge.39 (See Inventory in Chapter Five for further information.)

This development increased Brightwood’s population and in turn brought new institutions to the neighborhood. Fire Company 22, lauded by William Van Zandt Cox in 1897, was enlarged in 1908. That same year Brightwood Avenue was renamed Georgia Avenue. In 1899 Nativity Catholic Church was established, and its first church building opened in 1901 at 6000 Georgia Avenue. This time period also saw the expansion of existing institutions. The Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, grew to over 240 members and so doubled the size of its building at 5832 Georgia Avenue. Following the Civil War, Emory United Methodist Church built a stone chapel at its current site at 6100 Georgia Avenue, high on

the hill overlooking the neighborhood.40

The demise of a Brightwood institution further marked this period. The Brightwood Trotting Park was best known for its harness racing and trotting events and also held some of the first auto races in Washington, DC on its half-mile dirt track in 1903. When the track closed on October 7, 1909, the occasional mule race was the only event at the track. On the morning of October 15, 1909, the track was demolished to make way for the extension of 14th Street and construction of a new reservoir.41

By the Side of the Road: Brightwood Between the Wars

Because Washington, DC lacked a manufacturing base, investment capital went mostly into real estate speculation. Land prices rose steadily into the early 1900s,

and middle class families were forced to move further into the northwest suburbs of Mount Pleasant, Brightwood, and Takoma Park. Citizens’ associations, including the Brightwood Citizens’ Association, were still unhappy with the pace of road and utilities improvements. In a 1914 letter to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Louis P. Shoemaker, president of the Association, complained that the city had not kept its promise to relieve the traffic congestion on Georgia Avenue by extending 13th and 16th Streets and building new sewers.42 The Association continued to advocate for improved infrastructure and actively supported the appointment of District commissioners who were sympathetic to its causes.

World War I brought another surge in population accompanied by housing shortages. The number of Washington

Figure 19: Emory United Methodist Church Stone Chapel, Now Demolished

Figure 18: Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, circa 1919Figure 17: First Church of the Nativity, circa 1948

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

22 CHAPTER TWO

effectively silenced. At war’s end these issues began attracting local and national attention. Since the start of World War II, the District’s African American residents had unsuccessfully lobbied for social reforms in response to racially discriminatory draft selection processes and hiring practices of federal agencies. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People lobbied for the fair and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of skin color. The organization also planned to march on the National Mall to protest against discrimination.

The federal government, particularly President Truman, was concerned about how this demonstration would appear to America’s citizens and to the world at large. As a result, Truman issued an executive order on fair employment mandating that all government agencies, and those who

residents grew from 350,000 in 1917 to 526,000 a year later. In the 1920s Brightwood saw the construction of apartment buildings instead of single-family homes in order to accommodate this population increase.43 Dangerous traffic and crowded schools became the main complaints of Brightwood residents. They requested that the District build additional schools to accommodate the children of families living in this newly constructed housing. Additionally, the growing wealth of the community necessitated more banking services. In 1922 the Bank of Brightwood was formed. By 1923 the bank had outgrown its headquarters and a new building, which still exists today, was constructed in 1925 at the corner of Georgia and Missouri Avenues. In 1932, Raymond Schreiner, the president of the bank, was indicted for embezzling funds. This, coupled with the onset of the Great Depression in the 1930s, caused the bank to close. It was one

of only four banks in Washington, DC to close during this time. 44 This left Brightwood without a bank.

Road to the Present: Brightwood in the Postwar Years

At the close of World War II, Washington, DC had to readjust to the newfound peace. Many wartime agencies dissolved or were subsumed by the traditional governmental agencies that existed before the war. Furthermore, during the war years concerns over growing racial tensions were

received government contracts, could not discriminate based on race. As the executive order applied solely to governmental agencies and employers, discrimination remained legal for all those outside of this purview. For example, it was understood that African American women volunteering for the American Red Cross, a private organization, would be placed in menial positions regardless of their knowledge, experiences, and qualifications.45

By and large, white Washington remained free to discriminate against the Figure 20: Bank of Brightwood

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 23

black population of the District. Racism continued to persist and was especially evident in the business practices of the Washington DC Real Estate Board. The board practiced redlining, a tool used to contain African American citizens within certain, usually less affluent, neighborhoods.46 Such sentiment was also prevalent in Brightwood as evidenced in the actions of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association. While the Association worked to better the neighborhood through road improvements, school enhancements, and other projects, it also lobbied for of racially discriminatory practices such as the segregation of public facilities. For example, on April 14, 1950, the Association “voted opposition to opening any swimming pools in the District on a non-segregated basis.”47

Stories of integration sharply contrasted with racial discrimination in

inclusive business practices.50 In the following decades Lebowitz continued to expand the Morton’s chain. Brightwood became home to his sixth store when it opened at 5601 Georgia Avenue in 1982.51

Since the 1940s, Brightwood had served as home to a large number of Jewish residents. In 1958 the Agudath Achim congregation dedicated a new synagogue at the corner of 13th and Tuckerman Streets to serve its growing membership.52 Posin’s Bakery and Delicatessen opened in 1947. For the next 50 years, Posin’s was considered the neighborhood hangout and unofficial landmark, serving Brightwood’s residents as well as prominent guests, including Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir during her visits to Washington in the late 1960s.53

Throughout the ‘Baby Boom’ period, America’s post-war population explosion

Brightwood. In 1963 Hechinger’s lumber and hardware store, located in Brightwood at 5925 Georgia Avenue, hired two African American men as assistant managers, marking one of the first advances beyond lower-level employment for African Americans in Washington, DC.48 Likewise, Jewish businessman Mortimer Lebowitz, head of Morton’s department stores, was one of the first Washington businessmen to integrate his staff, doing so in 1952.49 Later, the District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce praised Lebowitz for this decision and honored him with an award for his

increased the demand for housing across the United States. In Washington, DC, outlying neighborhoods such as Brightwood underwent a population increase as the result of available housing and ready infrastructure. This infill stemmed from the development of open spaces as well as the redevelopment of existing land. Throughout the 1950s African American families finally began to move into Brightwood.54 The Brightwood Citizens’ Association disbanded and was replaced by the current Brightwood Community Association, which, unlike its predecessor, promotes the well-being of all community

Figure 21: The 1982 Grand Opening of Morton’s Depart-ment Store in Brightwoood

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

24 CHAPTER TWO

that sought to maintain stable, ethnically-diverse neighborhoods in northwest Washington. In comparison to the rest of the nation at this time, the existence of a neighborhood-based group working for integration and cooperation was quite an anomaly.57 However, as has been seen throughout Brightwood’s history, it has been home to an active and progressive-minded citizenry working toward positive change.

The riots that erupted following the April 4, 1968, assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. largely severed whatever ties organizations such as Neighbors Inc. had managed to establish across racial lines. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington, DC were ravaged by violence with many areas within these cities being set ablaze. In Washington, entire sections of the downtown resembled war zones. Although Brightwood was not the scene of

residents. As in many other close suburbs, white flight began, and many white residents moved to the growing Maryland suburbs.

The District of Columbia adopted an integrated public school system in 1954 in response to Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe. Yet this decision was simply an early step toward an integrated city. District schools were integrated in a gradual fashion—not every grade in Brightwood Elementary School, for example, was immediately integrated in 1954. Nonetheless, the schools were slowly moving toward a reflection of present-day Brightwood, a neighborhood populated by people of many different races and ethnic backgrounds.55 According to former Brightwood resident Carol Perlin in an interview with community researcher Mary Konsoulis, integration was accomplished at Coolidge Senior High School without incident. The all-white

school welcomed two black students as if it were a regular occurrence said Perlin. Perlin also noted that Coolidge High School was the only such institution where mandated integration was not met by protests and picketing. Also, because the students were so well behaved, they were rewarded with a “special treat.” Jackie Robinson, the first Major League Baseball player to break the color barrier, came to speak at the school.56

Although white flight had already begun, in the early 1960s Brightwood was part of Neighbors Inc., an interracial group

any significant violence, the riots further encouraged white flight and assured its development as an almost strictly African American enclave.

During the 1970s, the exodus of Brightwood’s white population continued. As Brightwood’s Jewish population had dwindled, the Agudath Achim congregation relocated in the late 1970s, joining with another synagogue in the Maryland suburbs. With the building vacant, the Brightwood Community Association lobbied the DC government to locate a public library there

Figure 22: Menorah on Back Facade of St. John Church

Figure 23: Posin’s Bakery & Delicatessen, circa 1948

Figure 24: 1972 Advertisement for Posin’s Deli

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 25

but was unsuccessful.58 The Agudath Achim congregation sold the property to St. John’s United Baptist Church, which continues to occupy the building today.

Business after business closed and left Brightwood for more lucrative markets.59 Local residents complained vociferously but to little avail. These departures can be traced in part to the aftermath of the 1968 riots and to a very real racial bias against the increasingly African American Brightwood neighborhood. The growth of Georgia Avenue as a major thoroughfare for commuters traveling between downtown Washington, DC and Maryland’s suburbs also played a significant role in the decline of Brightwood’s infrastructure during this time period. The community became a place to pass through, not stop in, and consequently many businesses did not survive.

The departure of desirable businesses from the Georgia Avenue commercial corridor was both the cause and effect of Brightwood’s economic decline. This decline, however, also increased as Brightwood began to experience increasing crime rates. As early as 1970, a Washington Post article poignantly addressed the community’s problems with crime. It described Brightwood as a formerly distinguished neighborhood that held promise but was experiencing a rapid increase in crime, especially drug trafficking. Drug abuse was considered enough of a problem that several community based organizations were working to eliminate the trouble.62 Illegal drug trafficking had moved out of the inner city and posed a serious threat to the solidly middle class Brightwood neighborhood.

By the late 1970s some of Georgia Avenue’s commercial structures had been

One important venue, however, did hold on, at least for a while. The Polar Bear frozen custard stand, located in the 6600 block of Georgia Avenue, was a popular place for Brightwood residents to enjoy some of the “best frozen custard, so creamy,” served by a friendly staff.60 With its large plaster bears, the stand was well known as “Washington’s chief architectural monument in the Hollywood outrageous style.”61 Although the Polar Bear no longer exists, Brightwood’s residents remember it fondly as a place to meet and enjoy cold treats on a hot day.

taken up by businesses that the local residents deemed undesirable. In 1978 an adult entertainment bar on Georgia Avenue in Shepherd Park, just north of Brightwood, lost its liquor license. The Advisory Neighborhood Council of Brightwood and Shepherd Park had been working to remove these types of establishments, and “residents of the upscale, integrated neighborhoods” had been protesting the bar’s existence for several years.63 In 1983 The Washington Post published an article entitled “Go-Go Bars Draw Fire On Upper Georgia Avenue” that described how community

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

26 CHAPTER TWO

In the 1990s, newspaper headlines touted Brightwood as “a community united.”66 However, the closing of established neighborhood businesses and the proliferation of liquor stores and take-out restaurants came as significant setbacks to civic-minded residents. In December 1991 the Hechinger’s on Georgia Avenue closed. Built by founder Sidney Hechinger, the Georgia Avenue location had been one of the home improvement chain’s original stores, and “an anchor of the Georgia Avenue business corridor since the 1950s.”67 Likewise, Morton’s Department Store did not reopen after its building was completely destroyed by a two-alarm electrical fire on the morning of August 6, 1993.68 Finally, due to the public’s fear of being out after dark in the Brightwood neighborhood, Posin’s scaled back its hours and moved its closing time from 10 pm to 6 pm. Dwindling numbers of customers finally caused the long established

members continued the fight to close down adult entertainment and pornography stores.64 Neighbors Inc., the organization originally formed in the 1950s to combat white flight, continued to work on behalf of local residents by fighting against these adult entertainment bars and undesirable businesses. The grassroots efforts were largely successful, and the absence of these establishments in Brightwood today is proof of this achievement.

Brightwood residents also joined the rest of Washington, DC in celebrating the Georgia Avenue Day Festival, an annual event that began in 1983. Each year thousands of people amass along the five-mile stretch of Georgia Avenue to enjoy parades, live music, games, and other entertainment. Charlene Drew Jarvis co-founded the Georgia Avenue Foundation, the event’s sponsor. Jarvis was well aware of the importance of

promoting the growth of desirable businesses along Georgia Avenue. She acknowledged that

I recognize the importance Georgia Avenue Day has for businesspeople located there and for consumers. This day and the work of the Foundation year-round will be to bring city-wide attention to the variety of shoppers’ goods and services available along Georgia Avenue.65

and well-known Jewish delicatessen to close in 1998.69

At the same time, more and more liquor stores began appearing along Georgia Avenue. Most earn the majority of their profits from the sale of individual bottles and cans of beer. The rise of these liquor stores, and particularly their high sales of “singles,” has fostered the development of a negative atmosphere along Georgia Avenue. Individuals loiter, often drinking, along the street. Likewise, the take-out restaurants have similarly contributed to the problem and

Figure 25: Liquor Store on Georgia Avenue

Figure 26: Adult Entertainment on Georgia Avenue

Figure 27: Activities at the 1994 Georgia Avenue Day Festival

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 27

greatly increased the amount of litter strewn about the area.

In 1992 a new Safeway supermarket was constructed near the intersection of Piney Branch Road and Georgia Avenue. Its installation was based on ten years of market research in an effort to tailor the store to the needs of neighborhood residents.70

The present-day demographics of Brightwood reflect an increasingly diverse ethnic make-up. The predominately African American neighborhood has increasingly become home to immigrants from Korea, Latin America, and Africa. Whites have also begun returning to the area. The resulting mix of racial and ethnic identities coupled with economic pressure from increased housing prices has already shown that the community must once again reinvent itself.

new and old alike. An understanding of and appreciation for Brightwood’s rich history is an essential first step in this process.

The Path of Transportation in Brightwood

Throughout Brightwood’s history, transportation has played a vital role in the development and character of the community. Over its history, the preferred mode of transportation along the Georgia Avenue corridor has changed from stage coaches, to streetcars, to automobiles. Brightwood citizens historically came together over the issue of transportation in an effort to bring attention to their growing community. Transportation transformed Brightwood from a quiet, rural village to the urban place it is today.

By Foot or By Horse: Roads and Turnpikes

Conclusion

Brightwood has experienced a long, sometimes turbulent, history from its beginnings as an 18th century agricultural settlement to its present role as an increasingly diverse community. Throughout this entire period, however, Brightwood has remained unique, with both community members and outsiders contributing characteristics and values to the neighborhood. The present challenge is to develop and maintain a sense of place that appeals to all community members,

The earliest forms of transportation in Brightwood reflected the nature of travel in the early 1800s. People walked or rode horses. The first roads were dirt tracks, and vehicles became mired in mud after rainstorms making transportation difficult. With the winter snowfall, sleigh rides made the rutted roads passable.71 The first major road through Brightwood was the 7th Street Turnpike, now known as Georgia Avenue. In 1810 Congress granted a charter to the Columbia Turnpike Company to build three turnpikes from Washington to the Maryland line. In 1818 the Columbia Turnpike

Figure 28: 1993 Fire Causes Morton’s Department Store to Close

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

28 CHAPTER TWO

Clagett Proctor, were “drawn by two ancient and jaded horses driven by a good-natured, colored man named Cherry.”77

In 1906 citizens of Brightwood attended a meeting of the East Washington Citizens’ Association to protest the poor condition of Brightwood Avenue. While attempts had been made to macadamize the suface of Brightwood Avenue, these were either incomplete or unsuccessful as the Washington Star on October 5, 1906, reported that residents

carried with them samples of the Georgia Avenue mud upon their shoes, so much that the ‘all-shines-for-5-cents’ would have raised his price had they called upon him to render service. But they could not help taking the mud with them, and it was used as an object lesson during

Company gave up its rights to the 7th Street route to the Rockville and Washington Turnpike Company.72 Tollgates were erected, one being placed on 7th Street just north of the first Emory Chapel according to the Boschke Map of 1861.73 Local residents extended Piney Branch Road south to parallel the turnpike in order to avoid paying the toll.

The turnpike stretched from the center of Washington through Brightwood into Rockville, Maryland. It became an important artery for farmers bringing produce from Maryland to the markets in Washington. The turnpike remained a narrow dirt road until 1852 when Francis Preston Blair, the founder of Silver Spring, Maryland, had the road planked with halves of hemlock trees.74 This made the road just wide enough for two carriages to pass. In 1871 the Washington, DC, government took

control of the road, making it a free, public thoroughfare. The renamed 7th Street Road was graded and cobbled by the Board of Public Works later that year.75

Travel down the turnpike was often by hackney coach. The coaches were called “sea going hacks” because the roads were so rough that the passengers experienced many of the symptoms of seasickness.76 Beginning around 1859 and continuing to 1890, the Red Bird stage coach was the major form of transportation to and from Brightwood. The Red Bird coaches, as described by writer John

the discussion of their grievances…it is considered the most important thoroughfare in that section, its roadway is impassable, and the greater part of it is without even a sidewalk.78

A Whole New Way to Travel: Streetcars

Public transportation in Brightwood improved in the late 19th century. In 1888, Congress authorized the incorporation of the Brightwood Railway Company of the District of Columbia and allowed it to lay tracks for a horse or electric streetcar.79 Streetcars began

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 29

operating along Brightwood Avenue, which signaled the beginning of suburbanization for Brightwood. At first, the streetcars were pulled by a single horse until a second horse was added in 1893. The horses wore bells, most likely as a means of warning pedestrians of their approach.80

Although the streetcar enabled Brightwood residents easier access to the city, the new line had its drawbacks. A four-and-a-half year old girl was killed by a Brightwood Railway car while playing in the street. While the conductor claimed that he was not speeding,81 streetcar speed limits were adopted following accidents such as this one. Additionally, the cars often jumped the tracks “at the slightest provocation,” and the horses balked all the time. Riders had to help reset the car on the tracks with such regularity that they began terming their work the “G.O.P.” or “get out and push.” At

barn at 5929 Georgia Avenue that presently houses Curtis Chevrolet. It operated as a repair facility for streetcars until 1950. The Brightwood Railway Company was absorbed into the Washington Railway and Electric Company in 1912.83

Ridership dropped following the advent of the automobile and the onset of the Great Depression of the 1930s. In a misguided effort to increase revenues, railway companies increased fares only to see their ridership plummet even more. Attempting to save the system, Congress authorized a massive merger of Washington’s streetcar industry, thus creating the Capital Transit Company. This measure failed, and the company ceased operation in 1962. The last streetcar left Georgia Avenue on January 3, 1960, when bus service took over the route.84 The Rubber Meets the Road: The Automobile Comes to Brightwood

first riders were willing to help, but as the weather worsened and their frustration grew, they no longer participated in the G.O.P. Problems with the streetcars provided the impetus for the formation of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association whose members lobbied successfully for the implementation of electric streetcars.82

The development of Brightwood accelerated in the early 1890s with the arrival of electrified streetcars. After a fire destroyed the original streetcar barn in 1895, the Brightwood Railway Company built a new

Mr. J. I. Foss brought the first automobile to Washington, DC in 1898. Four years later the Washington Post proudly reported that there were 400 autos in the District.85 At this early stage, “automobiling” was seen as little more than a hobby or sport, akin to bicycling or roller skating. This activity, however, was limited to the wealthy elite

The prejudice against the auto both in this country and in France is largely due to the fact that only the

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

30 CHAPTER TWO

Congressman Thetus Sims, a “Representative of Tennessee mule country,” led the United States Congress in a crackdown on automobiling in Washington, DC.91

Following the dissolution of the National Capital Automobile Club, the Automobile Club of Washington became the principal organization for the District’s automobilists. Unlike its predecessor, this new club, founded in 1905, was almost purely a social organization. Membership quickly grew, and soon “there was a demand for a clubhouse somewhere on the outskirts of the city.”92 The anti-automobile attitude of the federal government was likely the primary reason behind this decision to locate in the country. Members of the automobile club quickly arranged to lease the south grounds of the Villa Flora Club, another social organization located in the village of Brightwood.

only the steam-operated machines required an operator’s permit, a third-class engineer’s license.88 The club was extremely active in campaigning for the rights of automobilists, demanding that horse-drawn carriages be subject to the same rules and regulations as autos. It even threatened to address the United States Supreme Court regarding the “indignity” of being forced to paint license numbers on the backs of their automobiles.89 This advocacy group was extremely short-lived, a victim of the federal backlash against America’s growing automobile culture. In 1906, future President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech entitled The Young Man’s Burden, in which he warned that, “Nothing has spread Socialistic feeling in this country more than the use of automobiles. To the countryman they are a picture of arrogance of wealth with all its independence and carelessness.”90 At the time socialism was judged to be a growing threat to American society. As a result,

wealthy can afford to indulge in the sport of automobiling, and when one comes to consider that the cheapest auto on the market cannot be purchased for less than $600; that to rent one costs all the way from $2.50 to $5 per hour, and that there is not the slightest prospect of a reduction in these prices and rates, it is plain enough that it will be a long time before people of means and standing abandon the auto for the reason that it has become the pastime of the poor and vulgar.86

The National Capital Automobile Club, the first automobile organization in Washington, DC, formed in 1901.87 The pioneering members, all upper class gentlemen, owned gasoline, electric, and even steam-powered automobiles, with the electrics favored by a ratio of 5:1. Initially,

Figure 29: Brightwood Railway Company Streetcar, circa 1890

Figure 30: Brightwood Car Barn, circa 1947 Figure 31: Interior of Brightwood Car Barn, circa 1914

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 31

The clubhouse of the Automobile Club of Washington, a two-story wood bungalow, opened on the evening of July 17, 1906. Approximately 250 motoring enthusiasts attended the event, 125 of whom were club members. The clubhouse itself reflected the high status and wealth of these individuals, boasting an oak-inlaid assembly room with an immense fireplace and mission-style furniture, a ladies’ reception room, men’s smoking room, and a billiard room. A steward was said to be in attendance at all times. Outside, a 12-foot porch extended around three sides of the building, and most importantly, the ample grounds provided parking space for 100 cars.93

The club likely chose this specific location for its clubhouse at least in part due to the high-quality road construction of Brightwood Avenue. Although the road was in poor condition by today’s standards, at the

the club to locate on Brightwood Avenue. Although the racetrack was demolished in October 1909, the half-mile oval hosted some of Washington’s first car races, including the first to occur under the auspices of the Washington Automobile Dealers’ Association. Held on October 28, 1903, this event was “the first opportunity the local enthusiasts have had to witness the speed contests of some of the best machines of the country.”95 According to the Washington Post of October 29, 1903, nearly 500 people attended the day’s races, and these spectators followed “the swift machines with the keenest of interest” because of the danger posed by the track’s short turns. One car even crashed through the railing at the first turn, landing the surprised but unhurt driver in the infield. Moving at 15 miles per hour, the fastest cars completed a lap in approximately two minutes. A Cadillac and a Stanley Steamer captured the honors by winning two races

time it was one of the finest in the District of Columbia despite its frequent muddy conditions so vociferously objected to by the Brightwood Citizens’ Association. Less than a month before the clubhouse opened, the Washington Post described travel along the route in glowing terms: “The run, though short, is a fine ride, through Brightwood Avenue, one much used by motor cars. Its macadamized roadbed makes it an ideal road for automobiling.”94

Proximity to the old Brightwood Trotting Park may have also encouraged

apiece.96

In August 1907 the Automobile Club of Washington became an affiliate of the American Automobile Association (AAA). Today’s motorists largely associate AAA with roadside assistance, although the association also provides trip planning services to its members. In the early 20th century AAA membership entitled the members of the Automobile Club of Washington to “have entry to the clubhouse of any automobile club in the country that is a member of the three A’s.”97 In a world before motels and fast

Figure 32: Serviceman in a Streetcar Plow Pit along Georgia Avenue

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

32 CHAPTER TWO

At present, Georgia Avenue experiences one of the highest traffic volumes in all of Washington, DC at 13,000 to 32,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, Georgia Avenue has one of the highest concentrations of bus riders. At the rate of 23 automobile accidents per year, the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Missouri Avenue is one of the most dangerous in the District. The lack of pedestrian amenities along Georgia Avenue, including benches, trees, and trash receptacles further reinforces dependence on the automobile. The few parking places that are available have further encouraged motorists to pass through Brightwood without stopping in the community.99

Conclusion

Perhaps more than any other single factor, changes in transportation accounted for the growth and development

food, these local clubs served as rest stops for weary motorists adventuring across America.

In the coming decades, Brightwood Avenue, later Georgia Avenue, continued to attract car enthusiasts. In 1908 Henry Ford released his famous Model T, at a price of $850. By the 1920s this price had fallen to $300, approximately $3,300 in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars.98 This low cost finally made the automobile accessible to most Americans. Consequently, the number of cars on America’s roads skyrocketed, and Georgia Avenue was no exception. Georgia Avenue quickly became a major automobile thoroughfare connecting downtown Washington, DC with the city of Silver Spring and its neighboring communities in Montgomery County, Maryland.

By the latter half of the 20th century as a result of the growth of the automobile

culture, Georgia Avenue began to lose its once distinctive character as the road increasingly became a means of getting from place to place and rarely a destination itself. Businesses closed and relocated often amid protests from Brightwood’s residents, who were increasingly required to venture out of the neighborhood for shopping, dining, and entertainment. This reliance on the automobile, coupled with the 1968 riots and white flight, had dire consequences for the neighborhood.

of Brightwood over time. The community evolved from an isolated agricultural settlement to an urban neighborhood as transportation advancements increasingly connected Brightwood with its surrounding landscape. Most often these changes brought people closer together—be they the early visitors who came to Brightwood by hackney coach to spend a day at the trotting park, the Brightwood Citizens’ Association, which lobbied the local government for road improvements, or the automobilists who gathered together at their posh clubhouse before setting out on another adventure.

Figure 33: Advertisement for the Automobile Club of Washington

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 33

Monument Society. His property in Brightwood, called Norway, was on what is now the Walter Reed Army Medical Center property, located at the intersection of Aspen Street and Georgia Avenue.100

Elizabeth “Aunt Betty” Thomas

Mrs. Elizabeth Proctor Thomas was a free black woman, born on July 11, 1821, to Walter and Betty Proctor. The Proctors had purchased 88 acres of land in Brightwood where they raised their family. Mrs. Thomas, also known as “Aunt Betty,” and her husband eventually occupied this property where she worked as a dairywoman. In 1861, her house and property were taken for the construction of Fort Stevens. Throughout her life, she maintained that President Lincoln had promised her restitution for her home. Unfortunately, she received nothing other than the return of her land, which

These same changes in transportation, though, contributed to the 20th century decline of Brightwood as well. The current task is to encourage the motorists passing through on their morning and evening commutes along Georgia Avenue to stop and enjoy the community’s history along with its residents.

Roadbuilders: Important People in Brightwood’s Past

A community is reflective of the people who live there. Throughout its history, Brightwood’s citizens have played important roles not just in the history of the neighborhood but in the history of the city of Washington and the nation as well. While many citizens of Brightwood worked to improve their neighborhood, the achievements of some of their neighbors had lasting effects.

Thomas Carbery

Thomas Carbery was a prominent Brightwood citizen in the early years. A successful business owner, Carbery specialized in the shipping and selling of business materials. A civic-minded individual, Carbery founded an orphanage known as St. Vincent’s which lasted well into the 20th century. He also served as mayor of Washington from 1822-1823, city council member, and justice of the peace. He was a founding member of the Washington

was located directly west of Emory United Methodist Church. Supportive of the Union efforts in the Civil War, she cooked for the troops and helped with the ammunition stored in the stone basement of her old home. She died on October 13, 1917.101

Thomas was known as a supporter of education and a great civic leader. She served as president of the Elizabeth Thomas Citizens’ Association and did much to help shape the civic affairs of the District of Columbia. Her story is significant as an important account of a black woman’s Figure 34: Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

34 CHAPTER TWO

Shepherd. After gaining control of the Board of Public Works, Shepherd used patronage to turn it into the most powerful DC territorial office. He wanted to remake Washington into a capital worthy of a newly reunited nation. Undeterred by the lack of money, Shepherd assumed that the federal government would not allow the District to plunge into bankruptcy and convinced the legislature to borrow heavily to fulfill his vision. And his vision was breathtaking. It included new roads, bridges, water mains, sewers, and tree plantings to beautify the city. Under his direction, the Board of Public Works embarked on a frenzied program of improvements that brought a lot of criticism. Shepherd and his allies were accused of developing roads and sewers to benefit his friends’ real estate holdings, giving generous municipal contracts to their cronies, and failing to deal with appalling corruption and conflicts of interest.

involvement in the Civil War and in the defense of Washington, DC.102

Matthew Gault Emery

Influential in the early development of Brightwood, Matthew Gault Emery owned a mansion valued at $7,000 that stood on the site of present-day Emery Park just north of Madison Street. A notable stonemason and builder, Emery furnished part of the stone for the extension of the United States Capitol and personally cut its cornerstone. He assisted President Fillmore in the laying of this stone on July 4, 1851. In addition, he also prepared, cut, and laid the cornerstone of the Washington Monument on July 4, 1848. The location of his home in Brightwood was of military importance during the Civil War since it was on some of the highest ground around Washington. Emery, a militia member,

vacated his home so that the Union army could use the property. In 1870 he served as mayor of Washington, DC for one year before Congress switched the District to a territorial form of government at the behest of President Ulysses Grant. He was the last mayor of Washington until homerule was reinstituted in the 20th century.103

Alexander “Boss” Shepherd

No Washington figure is more responsible for the development of Washington, DC than Alexander “Boss”

Despite these accusations, President Grant appointed Shepherd as territorial governor of Washington in 1873. He was ousted from the territorial governor’s office in 1874. He later moved to Mexico to operate a silver mine.104

John Saul

John Saul immigrated to the Brightwood area from Ireland in 1851. Educated in landscape gardening, he came to America to work under the direction of Andrew Jackson Downing, one of the most prominent landscape designers of Figure 35: House of Alexander “Boss” Shepherd

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 35

John Clagett Proctor

John Clagett Proctor studied and wrote about the early history of Washington, DC. He was the author of many pamphlets and books on the history of the District of Columbia. He is best known, however, for his columns in the Washington Evening Star. Since his family had long been associated with Brightwood, many of his articles contained valuable nuggets of Brightwood history. In addition to his writing and history work, Proctor was a member of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association.107

Charles G. Gomillion

Brightwood attracted its share of nationally important figures. In 1971 Dr. Charles G. Gomillion, a correspondent of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., moved to the neighborhood. Gomillion had a PhD. in

the 19th century, on the improvement of public grounds in Washington. Later, Saul became a grower and importer of evergreens, ornamental trees, fruit trees, shrubs, and greenhouse plants. He laid out the gardens for Lafayette Square and for the Smithsonian.105 His nurseries were located in Brightwood. The larger 80-acre operation, known as Saul’s Division, was on Piney Branch Road near the racetrack. A smaller, 30 acre operation, used mostly for orchards, was near what is now Tuckerman to Quackenbos Streets and 14th Street to Rock Creek Park.

William Van Zandt Cox

William Van Zandt Cox was one of the presidents of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association. Cox was Matthew Gault Emery’s son-in-law and the chief clerk of the Smithsonian museum. He was also

a committed member of the Brightwood community. At the time of his residency in Brightwood, Fort Stevens was being used as a trash dump. Cox purchased the fort with his own money and then offered it to the federal government to be made into a public park. In the 1930s the federal government finally acquired the land. He was also active in seeing that the Union soldiers of the Battle of Fort Stevens were memorialized at the site of the fort. Under his direction, a large boulder holding a brass plaque in memory of the battle was placed at the fort.106

sociology and had been a dean at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. He is most famous for the Supreme Court case that bears his name, Gomillion v. Lightfoot. In the late 1950s, Dr. Gomillion filed a lawsuit alleging that Tuskegee’s black citizens had been gerrymandered out of their right to vote. Although he lost the case in the lower courts, Dr. Gomillion persevered, and in 1960, the United States Supreme Court ruled the city of Tuskegee had singled out a racial minority for special discriminatory treatment that had disenfranchised black voters. The Gomillion v. Lightfoot case is still required reading for Figure 36: John Clagett Proctor

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

36 CHAPTER TWO

19. National Park Service, “Fort Stevens.” 20. E.D. Townsend, “General Orders,

No. 83.” 21. “Bore the Brunt of War: History

of Church Rebuilt on Site of Fort Stevens,” The Washington Post, October 25, 1902.

22. B. Franklin Cooling and Walton H. Owen, Mr. Lincoln’s Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington, 46.

23. National Park Service, “Battleground National Cemetery” and “The Civil War Defenses of Washington, DC: Fort Stevens.”

24. Matthew Pinsker, Lincoln’s Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldier’s Home,142.

25. “Wild Target Shooting,” The Washington Post, September 16, 1883.

26. “Rites Today for Mrs. Osborn: Recalled Meeting President Lincoln,” MLK Vertical File: Brightwood.

27. “Death of M.G. Emery,” The

civil rights lawyers today.108

Endnotes1. Wikipedia.org. “Brightwood,

Washington, D.C.”2. Wordreference.com, English

Dictionary, “Community.”3. Wikipedia.org. “History of

Washington, DC.” 4. Ibid.5. Ibid.6. Council of the District of Columbia,

“History of Self-Government in the District of Columbia.”

7. Wikipedia.org. “History of Washington, DC.”

8. Council of the District of Columbia, “History of Self-Government in the District of Columbia.”

9. Ibid.10. Baltimore County Public Schools,

“Native Americans of Maryland—Sites.”

11. Katherine Elizabeth Grandine,

“Brightwood: Its Development and Suburbanization, 1800-1915,” 6.

12. Petworth Neighborhood of Washington, DC, “History and Geography.”

13. Grandine, 7-8.14. Ibid., 6.15. Ibid., 18.16. Ibid., 14.17. Griffith M. Hopkins, 1892 Real Estate

Plat Book of Washington, District of Columbia.

18. National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I and II.

Washington Star, October 13, 1901.28. Jacqui Handly, Civil War Defenses of

Washington, DC: A Cultural Landscape Inventory, 45.

29. National Park Service. “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment,” 19.

30. Brightwood Elementary School, “Brightwood History Reader,” 2-3.

31. J. Harry Shannon, “With the Rambler,” The Sunday Star. April 23, 1916.

32. “Fraternal Orders,” The Washington Post, August 3, 1913.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 37

49. “Hope for Rejuvenation: Morton’s Opens Branch Store in Poverty Area,” The Washington Post, August 13, 1967.

50. “Negro Leaders Urged To Expand Training,” MLK Vertical File: Stores.

51. Rudolph A. Pyatt, Jr., “Morton’s Opens New Store Today: Family-Owned Chain Is Bucking Trend of Delayed Expansion,” The Washington Post, September 30, 1982.

52. “Through the Lens: Jeremy Goldberg’s Washington,” The Record: Publication of the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington, 27 (2005-2006).

53. Peoples Involvement Corporation, “Georgia Avenue: Five Miles of Historic Evolution of Ethnic Diversity.”

54. Raymond and Reba Diggs, Interview with Mary Konsoulis, September 14, 2006.

55. Jeanne Rogers, “District School Integration Becomes Effective as

33. Grandine, 58-59.34. Ibid., 48-53. 35. William Herron and Daniel Ramey,

“Advertisement,” The Washington Evening Star, January 8, 1892.

36. William Van Zandt Cox, “Public Improvements Secured in the Northern Section of the District of Columbia by the Brightwood Citizens’ Association: An Address,” 6.

37. Grandine, 61.38. John Clagett Proctor, “Charles

Carroll Glover,” Washington Past and Present: A History, Vol. 3, 1-3.

39. Sandra Fleishman, “Wardman’s World: Developer’s Houses Defined the District in the Early 20th Century and Are Still Prized Today,” The Washington Post, October 15, 2005.

40. “Bore Brunt of War.”41. R.H. Baist, Real Estate Atlas and

Surveys of Washington, District of Columbia, 1913.

42. Grandine, 66-75.43. Ibid., 78.44. Sister Mary Alexine Beatty, Bank

Failures in the District of Columbia in the Twentieth Century.

45. Green, Constance McLaughlin, Washington: A History of the Capital, 1880-1950, 488-509.

46. Ibid.47. “Brightwood Unit Opposes Non-

Segregated Pools,” The Washington Star, April 15, 1950.

48. Rice Odell, “Some Negroes are Advancing in Some Places,” The Washington Daily News, June 5, 1963.

Task Of Booking 12,000 Begins,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, September 9, 1954.

56. Carole Perlin, Interview with Mary Konsoulis, September 2006.

57. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, “Interracial Group Tries to Make Living Easier in Changing NW Neighborhood,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, January 28, 1962

58. Diggs.59. Newspaper Articles, MLK Vertical

File: Brightwood Neighborhood.60. Diggs.61. Michael Kernan, “Georgia Avenue:

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

38 CHAPTER TWO

74. John Clagett Proctor, Washington and Environs, 107.

75. Arthur Hecht, “Marching Up Georgia Avenue: A Tour of Historic Georgia Avenue.”

76. Traffic Research Division of the Research and Development Department, 100 Years of Rail Transportation in the Metropolitan Washington Area, 1-2.

77. John Clagett Proctor, “Memoirs of Brightwood,” The Washington Star, March 18, 1951.

78. “Progress” Section. The Washington Star, October, 7 1956.

79. “Another Suburban Road,” The Washington Post, April 24, 1888.

80. Arthur Hecht, “Marching up Georgia: A Tour of Historic Georgia Avenue,” Kiplinger Library, Historical Society of Washington, DC.

81. “Killed by a Trolley Car: Little Gladys Gilmore’s Life Crushed Out While She Was at Play,” The Washington Post,

One City Artery,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, August 26, 1973.

62. Henry Aubin, “Once-Quiet Area Is Crime-Haunted,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, November 27, 1970.

63. Linda Wheeler, “Nude-Bar Owners Lose In D.C. Appeals Court,” The Washington Post, February 5, 1987.

64. Adam A. Dobrin, “Go-Go Bars Draw Fire On Upper Georgia Avenue,” The Washington Post, September 8, 1982.

65. “Thousands Enjoy Second Georgia Avenue Day,” The Washington Afro-American, September 15, 1984.

66. Keith Harriston, “District’s Brightwood A Community United,” The Washington Post, September 28, 1991.

67. Shaun Shutner, “Hechinger’s Closing Protested,” The Washington Post, December 5, 1991.

68. “Electrical Fire Guts Morton’s,” The

Washington Post, August 6, 1993.69. Debbie Wilgoren, “At Deli: Bagels,

Lox and Tears; Staff, Patrons Mourn Closing of Longtime Store,” The Washington Post, February 2, 1998.

70. Liz Spayd, “New D.C. Grocery Is Suited to Neighborhood’s Appetite,” The Washington Post, May 18, 1992.

71. “History of Brightwood Community and Brightwood Park Community,” January 6, 1987.

72. Grandine, 7-8.73. A. Boschke, Topographical Map of the

District of Columbia: Survey in the Years 1856, 1857, 1858, and 1859.

May 10, 1894.82. Proctor, “Memoirs.” 83. Katherine Schneider Smith, ed.,

Washington at Home: An Illustrated History of Neighborhood in the Nation’s Capital, 165-166.

84. Peter C. Kohler, Capital Transit: Washington’s Streetcars, The Final Era, 1933-1962, 11.

85. “Autos in Washington: Horseless Carriages Popular in the National Capital,” The Washington Post, August 17, 1902.

86. Ibid.87. “Washington Automobile Club,” The

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER TWO 39

Civil War: A Tribute to the U.S. Colored Troops.”

103. “Death of M.G. Emery.” 104. ExploreDC.org, “Local History:

Building a Capital City: Boss Shepherd Remakes the City.” 105. “Death of John Saul,” The Washington Post, May 12, 1897.

106. Grandine, 61. 107. “John C. Proctor, Historian, Dead,”

The Washington Post and Times Herald, April 26, 1956.

108. “Charles Gomillion, 95, Figure in Landmark Remap Case, Dies,” The New York Times, October 30, 1995.

Washington Post, January 15, 1901.88. “Autos in Washington.”89. “Objects to the Rules: The Capital

Automobile Club Asks for Uniform Law,” The Washington Post, March 26, 1902.

90. Michael L. Bromley, Early Automobiles and Airplanes: The Cultural Lag (Or Why Americans Didn’t Care About Henry Ford and Orville and Wilbur Wright Until After 1909).

91. Ibid.92. “The Automobile Club of

Washington,” The Washington Post, October 25, 1908.

93. Ibid.; “Auto Club is Opened: Large Gathering at the Bungalow Last Night,” The Washington Post, October 29, 1903.

94. “To Open New Home: Automobile Club is Nearing Completion,” The Washington Post, June 24, 1906.

95. “Autos Fast in Races: Splendid Exhibitions Seen on Brightwood

Track,” The Washington Post, October 29, 1903.

96. Ibid.97. “The Automobile Club of

Washington.”98. Wikipedia.org, “Ford Model I.”99. Great Streets Framework Plan: 7th Street—

Georgia Avenue NW, 11. 100. John Clagett Proctor, “Early Georgia

Avenue,” The Washington Evening Star, April 7, 1946.

101. Cooling and Owen, Mr. Lincoln’s Forts, 46-48.

102. Military Road School Preservation Trust, “The Untold Stories of the

CHAPT

ER TH

REEA P

ICTURE

OF BR

IGHTW

OOD

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

42 CHAPTER THREE

or worked as live-in servants. Although several black families owned property, most labored for white farmers. Immigrants from Germany and Ireland also lived in the area. In the 1870 census, 518 people and 111 families were counted in the Brightwood Post Office enumeration district. Fifty-six percent of these were black and 44% white. The homes of both black families and white families were clustered in racial enclaves.1

The census of 1880 shows that many people were government workers or involved in professions not associated with farming such as printers, plumbers, bank tellers, and druggists. It can be inferred from this that improvements in transportation made it easier to commute to jobs downtown. The 1880 census marked the beginning of change in Brightwood. Of the 414 people living on 7th Street Road, only 15% were black, most of them working as servants or laborers. In

Brightwood’s historic resources.

Historic Demographics

The information in this section has been derived from the 1860 to 1920 population census data. Since the 1890 census was destroyed in a 1921 fire, there is no data for that year. From an examination of the 1860 and 1870 manuscript census reports, it is clear that most men were involved either in farming, horticulture, or trades supporting those activities. Women stayed at home and took care of the family

Brightwood as a whole, however, there were 146 heads of households. Sixty were black, and 86 were white. The work force was varied; store owners, commercial agents, government clerks, lawyers, accountants, physicians and other professionals were almost equal in number to farmers. The German and Irish populations were well-represented. Many of the black day laborers and maids were migrants from the deep South who settled in the Vinegar Hill area.2

Few changes occurred between the 1880 and the 1900 censuses probably because

Demographic Information

Information collected through the United States Census is invaluable in generating demographics for a specific area over a ten-year period. Both current and historic demographics provide unique insights into an area on many levels. The following section on historic demographics presents census data for Brightwood between the years of 1860 and 1920. These historic demographics reflect Brightwood’s transition from a predominantly rural community to a more urban one. In addition, Brightwood’s existing historic fabric reflects these demographics, e.g., Brightwood Park was built to accommodate an increasing population. A later section on current demographics provides a picture of Brightwood today. An understanding of these present-day demographics is crucial in generating recommendations for

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER THREE 43

Current Demographics

Much of the information on the demographics of Brightwood is known through studies of Cluster 17, an area that is composed of Brightwood, Takoma, and Manor Park. The Cluster 17 report relies on data from the 2000 census. The three neighborhoods of Cluster 17 consist of middle-class residents and are situated adjacent to each other. They are located within the larger region of Ward 4 within the northwest quadrant of the District of Columbia. The ward’s boundaries are defined as Eastern Avenue to the north, extending to the northeast; CSX Railroad tracks and Harewood Road to the east; Michigan Avenue, Park Road, Spring Road and Piney Branch Parkway to the south; and Rock Creek Park to the west. Although the Cluster 17 statistical information does not focus exclusively on Brightwood, the

of the financial crisis caused by the Panic or Depression of 1893. Brightwood Avenue’s white population did increase to 65% and consisted of skilled workers, craftsmen, government workers, business clerks, and professionals. These workers may have been attracted to Brightwood because they could commute easily by streetcar. Vinegar Hill remained the center of the black population in Brightwood.3

The 1910 census shows a dramatic increase in the white population in Brightwood due to the development of Brightwood Park. Fewer people identified themselves as farmers or agricultural laborers while government workers, professionals, and skilled workers became a larger proportion of the working population. Also in the 1910 census, single women in Brightwood listed their occupations as teachers, stenographers and typists.4

The 1920 census for the Brightwood area reflected demographic trends in Washington, DC. Brightwood was racially segregated, with blacks continuing to reside in the Vinegar Hill area. Italian, Greek, Scandinavian, Polish, and Russian immigrants moved to Brightwood as the neighborhood became more middle class. Jews coming from eastern Europe also found a home in Brightwood. The number of residents employed by the federal government increased, especially professionals such as accountants, lawyers, and scientists.5

information is still relevant and useful in understanding the current state of the neighborhood.7

Population

In the year 2000, Cluster 17 had approximately 18,441 residents, representing approximately 3% of the District’s population. The number of residents in the area dropped from 20,634 in 1980, a trend that occurred throughout the city. Children under the age of 18 accounted for approximately 20% of this population.

Figure 37: Cluster 17 Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

44 CHAPTER THREE

The Cluster’s median household income was $45,848, which is higher than the citywide median household income of $43,001. In 1990 eleven percent of the ward’s households had incomes under $10,000, compared with 17% for the city. The ward also had a lower rate of persons receiving food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children than did the city as a whole. In 1990 eight percent of the city population received food stamps compared with only four percent in Ward 4.10

Home Ownership

The percentage of owner-occupied housing is higher than the city’s percentage, with 52% compared to 41% respectively. In fact, Ward 4 has the highest rate of home ownership of any ward in the District. High home ownership rates often occur when housing consists largely of single- family

People over the age of 65 years represented approximately 17% of the population, comparable to citywide averages.8

Race and Ethnicity

Until the 1950s, Ward 4 had a predominantly middle- to upper-class white population. Most of the white population moved to areas west of Rock Creek Park and to Maryland suburban communities in the 1950s and 1960s. Largely middle-class and professional African Americans replaced this population. Between 1964 and 1980, the racial composition remained fairly constant with the ward maintaining a predominantly African American population. Today African Americans still make up the majority of residents in this cluster, constituting 79% of its population. Another 13% of the residents are of Hispanic origin; this percentage is higher than the citywide average of 8%.

Approximately 9% of Cluster 17’s population is white—much lower than the citywide average of 31%.9

Employment, Income, and Poverty Levels

According to the 1980 census, over 39,000 Ward 4 residents out of the 42,100 eligible were employed, resulting in an unemployment rate of 6.3%. This rate is 1% less than the city average of 7.3%. The majority of the people employed within the ward held professional or managerial occupations.

dwellings. In Ward 4, fifty-nine percent of the housing units are in single unit structures, compared with 38% for the city. The median sale price of houses in Cluster 17 is $307,946, which is lower than the citywide average of $354,748.11

Education

Educational attainment is usually an indicator of the general social and economic conditions within a community. A higher level of education is often associated with a higher level of income. Although

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER THREE 45

(BCA) to prepare the Brightwood 2006 Neighborhood Development and Investment Plan. In preparing this plan, TRF surveyed approximately 80 residents of Brightwood concerning housing and commercial issues within the neighborhood. The results were not surprising and supported the observations of the University of Maryland studio team. The following graphs illustrate the findings of the TRF survey:14

there is no specific research that focuses on the education level of the Brightwood neighborhood about 25% of Ward 4 residents completed high school but did not continue their education further, and another 25% completed four or more years of college. This rate of college completion is below the citywide rate of 33%.12

Crime Rates

Activities such as prostitution and drug trafficking exist along the Georgia Avenue corridor—even near public schools. Citizens have expressed concerns about the proliferation of drug trafficking in the ward and its associated violence, litter, and decreased property values. Residents are not only concerned about reducing criminal activity but also about improving pedestrian safety. High-speed traffic on neighborhood streets is hazardous for pedestrians,

particularly the elderly and children. In addition, a high level of traffic congestion also contributes to the lack of safety for pedestrians.13

Current Survey Results

TRF Survey

The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) has been retained by Emory Beacon of Light, Inc., Emory United Methodist Church, Washington Interfaith Network (WIN), and the Brightwood Community Association

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

46 CHAPTER THREE

Perhaps the most striking result of the survey is the overwhelming evidence that Brightwood residents appreciate the historic character of their neighborhood. Of those who participated in the survey, over 77% responded in favor of a historic preservation plan while less than six percent believed their community would not benefit from a historic preservation plan, and 17% did not respond to the question. Sixty-two percent named Fort Stevens among the most important historic sites in the neighborhood, and 42% considered the fort to be a community landmark. The Old Military Road School, Battleground National Cemetery, Emery Park, and both Emory United Methodist Church and the Church of the Nativity are also seen as treasured historic sites.

Survey results indicate that the respondents would like to see improvements along Georgia Avenue. Just as TRF’s

A majority (60-80%) of the TRF respondents wanted to see the following improvements along Georgia Avenue:

!" Increased drug and alcohol controls!" Increased street and sidewalk cleaning!" Street and sidewalk infrastructure

improvements!" Street lighting improvements!" Street furniture additions!" Façade improvements!" Parking lot relocations

Respondents gave these answers to questions about housing:

!" 77% would support the adoption of inclusionary zoning policies

!" 77% think Brightwood needs more affordable housing for purchase

!" 34% think Brightwood needs more affordable rental housing

Studio Team Survey

It is important to determine the extent to which Brightwood residents value their neighborhood as well as the changes they would like to see along Georgia Avenue. To make this determination, the studio team devised a survey and distributed it to members of the community. A total of 144 surveys were collected at neighborhood churches, community events, meetings, Emery Recreation Center and along Georgia Avenue. (Appendix B contains a copy of the survey.)

survey revealed a strong desire for a higher quality of retail stores and restaurants, the studio team’s survey demonstrated that Brightwood residents are very interested in making Georgia Avenue a more user-friendly corridor. Fifty-three percent favored improved sidewalks, 39% approved of façade enhancements, and 38% felt that interpretive signage would benefit the community. Residents also requested benches, trash cans, and other streetscape improvements.

In addition, residents described Brightwood and Georgia Avenue in different

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER THREE 47

vacant and have begun deteriorating due to neglect. Many of the historic commercial structures in the study area are boarded up because they are vacant. The buildings that do have businesses are dominated by large signs that compete with each other for the pedestrians’ attention. Many of the commercial storefronts are covered by bars and gates giving the impression of a high crime area. The accumulation of large amounts of trash on the street also leads to the impression of an unsafe area. Although green spaces do exist along Georgia Avenue, they are underutilized, and there are no attempts to connect these green spaces to the rest of Georgia Avenue. These factors create a street that appears to be a disjointed and intimidating environment devoid of any real sense of place.

Not only is the physical appearance of the street unattractive, but it is also an

ways. While many respondents characterized both Georgia Avenue and Brightwood as historic, 26% referred to the unsafe traffic conditions along Georgia Avenue as busy, congested, and dangerous. Additionally, 33% of the respondents had negative opinions of Georgia Avenue and made reference to its physical condition by describing it as dirty, deplorable, and decrepit. In sharp contrast, nearly 60% of the respondents used positive terms such as beautiful, vibrant, and peaceful to describe the surrounding neighborhood and only 11% viewed Brightwood as unfavorably.

In making recommendations for the preservation plan, the studio team took into account the results of both surveys as well as the existing conditions along Georgia Avenue, a description of which appears below.

Current Conditions on Georgia Avenue

The current conditions in the study area along Georgia Avenue differ greatly from the surrounding Brightwood neighborhood. The overall conditions on Georgia Avenue have deteriorated significantly since the 1950s. The overall appearance of the streetscape and unsafe conditions have led to underutilization of this commercial strip by neighborhood residents.

The aesthetic nature of the streetscape has deteriorated for many reasons. Many buildings and lots along Georgia Avenue are

unsafe place for pedestrians because of the heavy traffic along Georgia Avenue. While the commercial structures and services along Georgia Avenue are at the pedestrian scale, traveling on foot to these places is difficult. The automobile traffic along Georgia Avenue moves quickly, and there are very few crosswalks running east-west. Many of the sidewalks are cracked and uneven, creating unsafe conditions for the many elderly residents of the surrounding neighborhood. While there are sidewalk cuts, the uneven pavement makes mobility difficult wheelchairs. Again, the large

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

48 CHAPTER THREE

the convenience of being able to walk to establishments such as churches and schools. Public transportation is accessible through the city’s buses.

By sharp contrast, the Georgia Avenue corridor within the study area is blighted. Vacant buildings, barred windows, and litter contribute to an environment that can best be described as unwelcoming. Brightwood residents believe the abundance of liquor stores and check cashing facilities encourage criminal activity. Community members are unsatisfied with the lack of quality restaurants and retail establishments, and they perceive the speeding traffic to be a safety hazard to the neighborhood’s many elderly residents and small children. Most would like to see Georgia Avenue transformed into a family-friendly atmosphere more befitting the surrounding residential areas.

amounts of trash make walking along the commercial strip dangerous and unpleasant. These unsafe conditions contribute to the reluctance of Brightwood residents to use this commercial area.

Sense of Place

To those unfamiliar with Brightwood’s rich and diverse history, the commercial corridor of Georgia Avenue lacks a sense of place, that intangible quality that links location with identity and memory. To long-time and former residents who remember Georgia Avenue as a vibrant shopping and entertainment district, the sense of place is hidden beneath decades of neglect and urban decay. Like those who have lived in Brightwood for many years, newcomers are seeking to reclaim the avenue and recapture the character and vitality this blighted street possessed in an earlier time.

Brightwood is an established, middle class, and predominantly African American neighborhood. The residents of the area enjoy the charm of a small town atmosphere coupled with urban amenities. With relatively few exceptions, the housing stock is older and well-built; new construction is rare. Craftsman-style bungalows, Wardman rowhouses, and art deco apartment buildings are just some of the styles of residential buildings found along the quiet, tree-lined streets to the east and west of Georgia Avenue. The neighborhood offers

Despite the strong disparity between the residential and commercial portions of the neighborhood, Brightwood’s greatest asset remains its people. In the longstanding spirit of community activism, residents, through organizations such as the Brightwood Community Association, are committed to bringing about positive change. As they reclaim Georgia Avenue by using the tools of historic preservation, the sense of place will once again emerge.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER THREE 49

Endnotes1. United States Census Bureau, 1860-

1930 Census.2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. Ibid.5. Ibid.6. Katherine Elizabeth Grandine,

“Brightwood: Its Development and Suburbanization, 1800-1915,” Appendix.

7. District of Columbia Office of Planning, “Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan: Cluster 17.”

8. Ibid.9. Ibid.10. Ibid.11. Ibid.12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. The Redevelopment Fund, 2006,

Neighborhood Development and

Investment Plan, “Community Workshop Results.”

CHAP

TER FO

URLA

ND U

SE: P

LANN

ING

& ZO

NING

APPL

ICAB

LE T

O T

HE

STUD

Y AR

EA

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

52 CHAPTER FOUR

vision through an achievable action plan that outlines implementation strategies, identifies action partners, and offers a timeframe for completion.”1 The plan is organized into seven elements considered to represent the most important issues in national capital region planning. One of these is the “Parks and Open Space” element which establishes policies to protect, enhance, and expand the parks and open space system. The Fort Circle Park System, which intersects the study area, is addressed therein. (See glossary and below.) According to this section, the federal government should develop and enhance the Fort Circle Parks through “community-oriented recreational opportunities, interpretation of the fort sites, and a well-delineated connecting trail in a park-like setting” while protecting the parks’ important natural landscape features.2 The “Preservation and Historic Features” element addresses historic preservation planning

and discern factors that will have an impact on future growth.

Federal Plans

Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements

The Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on August 5, 2004, provides “a broad vision of how the National Capital Region should develop over the coming years and details how to accomplish that

and stewardship of historic resources within the study area—emphasizing that in working with local officials and interested citizens, federal agencies should be wise stewards of the historic properties under their care or affected by their decisions.

The “Action Plan Matrix” of the Comprehensive Plan details specific projects within the plan’s goals and policies. The projects in the “Action Plan Matrix” are thematically organized according to those primary themes specified in the plan’s guiding principles. One of these primary

Introduction

Physical development in Washington, DC is guided by a two-part public policy document comprised of both federal and district comprehensive plans. This document is a broad statement of principles, goals, and planning policies that direct long-term development and decision-making in the national capital. Preservation planning takes place on more localized levels such as citywide, regional and neighborhood. While a neighborhood preservation plan is designed to address historic resources within a specific area, it must be prepared within the context of the larger community. Therefore, the plan and its recommendations need to comply with existing land-management tools at all applicable levels. This chapter serves to outline these existing tools as a whole, and in terms of the study area, to both identify current considerations for historic resources

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FOUR 53

opportunities compatible with historic and natural resource values.4

The plan calls for the improvement of recreational opportunities and facilities, the development of a new trail to connect the historic earthworks and link most of the fort sites, the creation of brochures, and the installation of interpretive signs to serve as wayfinders as well as enhance visitor awareness. In addition, a visitor center will be developed in the vicinity of Fort Stevens to offer orientation and interpretation. As Fort Stevens is adjacent to the study area, a visitor center would have a strong impact in both attracting visitors into the area and solidifying the importance of Fort Stevens within the local community.5

District of Columbia Plans

themes, stewardship of natural resources, includes the Fort Circle Park system initiative. The matrix directs NCPC to enhance the Fort Circle Parks system by working with the National Park Service on action items identified in the National Park Service General Management Plan that has not yet been released. Current proposals include adding trails to the system as well as emphasizing several key fort locations. This NCPC action item is considered long-term and may take from five to 20 years to complete.3

Fort Circle Parks Management Plan

The federal lands which make up the Fort Circle Parks system are under the management of three separate units of the federal government—Rock Creek Park, the National Capital–East, and the George Washington Memorial Parkway system. In

September 2004, the National Park Service issued the Final Management Plan for the Fort Circle Parks, designed to guide the management of the Fort Circle Parks over the next 10 to 15 years. This plan provides broad direction for the use, management, and development of the Fort Circle Parks. The purposes of the Fort Circle Parks are to 1) preserve and interpret historical resources related to the Civil War defenses of Washington, 2) conserve this linkage of urban green spaces that contribute to the character and scenic values of the nation’s capital, and 3) provide recreational

Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: District of Columbia Elements

The Home Rule Act of 1973 requires the District of Columbia government to develop a comprehensive plan. The first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1985 and has been periodically updated, most recently in 1998 and 1999. This document provides policy and planning guidance on the physical development and redevelopment of Washington, DC. It addresses a range of issues: land use, economic development, housing, environmental protection,

Figure 38: 1865 Map of Washington, DC’s Civil War Defenses

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

54 CHAPTER FOUR

all neighborhoods, allowing them to jointly make the choices that will shape the future of the nation’s capital.8

There are three challenges addressed in A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City, and each directly affects the character of Brightwood. First, to tackle the challenge of creating an aesthetic and successful neighborhood, the city government will line Georgia Avenue with trees and develop a more desirable mix of housing, retail, and other infrastructure along the thoroughfare. Second, the Office of Planning has identified Brightwood as one of 13 of the city’s neighborhoods to undergo development as mixed-use centers. This project will connect downtown Washington, DC with major suburban centers and their access to high-quality employment and educational institutions. The mixed-use centers will also provide on-site services for neighborhood

transportation, public facilities, urban design, and historic preservation. The Office of Planning is currently in the process of updating the comprehensive plan, which is outdated, difficult to read and understand, lacks graphics, and does not provide the direction needed to address the issues facing the city today.6

Chapter 15 of the comprehensive plan focuses on Brightwood and the remainder of Ward 4. This portion of the plan describes current conditions, objectives, and actions necessary to support eight elements concerning appropriate land use in Ward 4. These elements are economic development, housing, environmental protection, transportation, public facilities, historic preservation, human services, and zoning.7

A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City

In 2004 the District of Columbia’s Office of Planning wrote A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City. This report serves as a policy framework for an update to the city’s comprehensive plan taking place in 2006. This planning process is designed to encourage community dialogue, identify major issues to be addressed in the update to the comprehensive plan, and establish that the city must grow more inclusively. As a result, the policy framework should raise public awareness regarding the changes facing Washington, DC and engage residents from

residents, such as grocery stores and dry cleaners.9

In an effort to connect the city as a whole, Georgia Avenue has also been slated for transportation improvements designed to better accommodate mass transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as automobiles. This project should alleviate some of the traffic congestion now plaguing Georgia Avenue. Moreover, the historic role of corridors like Georgia Avenue as neighborhood main streets will be restored and existing resources enhanced by rehabilitating vacant buildings,

Figure 39: A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City Plan

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FOUR 55

intersection, which now has mid-size, stand-alone retail stores such as Rite-Aid and Autozone to the south, is envisioned as a revitalized and concentrated retail base. There may also be mid-rise residential infill that will replace underutilized retail and multifamily residential sites.12

District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan 2000

The District of Columbia values its historic resources and is currently revising theHistoric Preservation Plan for the city. The latest version was drafted in 2000 and serves as the first revision since the original plan was adopted in 1996. The purpose of this document is to outline public policies, goals, and objectives that operate as the framework for preservation citywide. There are eight Ward Plans within the Historic Preservation Plan. The goal of the Ward Plans is to review

promoting quality architecture, and adding landscaping, sidewalks, signage, and street furniture.10

Great Streets Initiative

In March 2005 Mayor Anthony A. Williams announced the Great Streets initiative. This is a multi-year, multiple agency effort to transform under-invested corridors into thriving and inviting neighborhood centers. Six major corridors in the District of Columbia have been chosen, including the Georgia Avenue/7th Street corridor. The purpose is to increase local neighborhood livability and economic development by improving the physical, economic, and safety conditions of the corridors while creating a new environment that invites private investment and neighborhood pride. For Georgia Avenue, the program strives to transform the corridor from

“indistinguishable stretches of struggling retail and aging houses into defined, neighborhood-serving retail cores.”11

A significant portion of redevelopment activity along the Georgia Avenue/7th Street corridor will occur in concentrated investment areas, including Brightwood. The plan calls for the Piney Branch-Georgia Avenue intersection, now with a Safeway and a CVS, to remain a retail center that will serve the neighborhood. A limited amount of mid-rise and infill is also possible. The Missouri-Georgia Avenue

the character and highlight preservation opportunities and needs.13

The Ward 4 Plan within this document highlights Fort Stevens and Battleground National Cemetery as important local and national historic features. Residential neighborhoods in this ward are characterized as stable, and the document also stresses that few major changes are anticipated for the area’s overall character. The recommended actions in the plan include surveying and designating potential landmarks, educating the public

Figure 40: Great Streets Initiative

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

56 CHAPTER FOUR

several actions, including installing additional trash bins, repairing potholes, and enforcing litter laws. The second objective is to secure public safety through actions such as crime prevention campaigns and modifying traffic signal timings to increase pedestrian safety. The third priority is to provide a high-quality education by improving facilities and providing more educational and recreational activities.16

Upper Georgia Avenue Land Development Plan

The District of Columbia Office of Planning is currently conducting public workshops and expects to release a final plan in the spring of 2007. The plan is envisioned as a strategic framework to guide growth and development along Georgia Avenue in order to make it an attractive destination for residents, business owners, and visitors. Community input has been integral in the

about historic preservation, and protecting resources while enhancing the attractiveness of the ward’s streetscape. In addition, historic landmarks and potential landmarks were identified, several of which are located in the Brightwood neighborhood. Military Road School is already a landmark; the Bank of Brightwood, Fire Engine Company 22, Brightwood Public School, and Emory United Methodist Church are identified as sites for potential designation.14

Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan for Cluster 17

The Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) for Cluster 17, written in the summer of 2002, is part of a new commitment from the Washington, DC government to work with citizens and other partners in order to make appropriate policy decisions. The document is designed to empower citizens to improve

their communities by mobilizing and coordinating the resources of government, business, nonprofits, faith communities, and the general population. SNAP provides information about the current state of the cluster, outlines action plans, and reviews other neighborhood initiatives.15

The priorities specific to Cluster 17, including Brightwood, focus on creating an enhanced, attractive, and well-maintained public infrastructure, as well as extending this change to private spaces. In order to keep the cluster well-maintained, the plan calls for

process of formulating the plan. In addition to working in conjunction with the Great Streets Initiative of the District of Columbia, this land development plan will build upon existing community assets, public investments and past planning efforts. The focus area includes properties fronting Georgia Avenue between Decatur Street to the south and Eastern Avenue to the north and spans the neighborhoods of Brightwood, Petworth, Shepherd Park, and Takoma.17

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FOUR 57

However, a number of other land uses are interspersed with those areas of commercial land use, particularly in the span stretching from Rittenhouse Street in the north to Madison Street in the south which includes the intersection of Georgia and Missouri Avenues. Between Aspen and Van Buren Streets, land uses include commercial, federal public, low to medium density residential, and medium density residential. Between Van Buren and Madison Streets, land uses include commercial; parks and open spaces, local public; public (both quasi-public and institutional); and mixed use. From Madison to Kennedy Streets, land use is entirely commercial.18

As the District of Columbia is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: District of Columbia, the Office of Planning has also generated Planned Land Use Maps which provide

Brightwood 2006 Neighborhood Development and Investment Plan

The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) has been retained by Emory Beacon of Light, Inc., Emory United Methodist Church, Washington Interfaith Network (WIN), and the Brightwood Community Association (BCA) to prepare the Brightwood 2006 Neighborhood Development and Investment Plan. Based upon research, as well as a number of community workshops and a community survey, TRF has prepared and presented draft recommendations to stakeholders.

Georgia Avenue Storefront Improvement Program (SIP)

The Emory Beacon of Light, Inc. has secured a SIP grant for façade improvements to twelve storefronts in the 6200 block of Georgia Avenue. Ideally, the organization

would like to improve 25 to 30 storefronts to have a greater impact on this area along the commercial corridor of Georgia Avenue.

Land Use and Zoning

Existing Land Use

The District of Columbia Office of Planning has generated Existing Land Use Maps for the city. Map Tile 3, generated on April 21, 2006, includes the study area and depicts existing land use along Georgia Avenue as being predominantly commercial.

a generalized view of how land in the city is intended to be used. Map 3, generated on March 4, 2005, depicts a streamlined vision for land use in the study area and predominantly reflects mixed-use commercial and residential usage. Between Aspen and Van Buren Streets, land use is designated residential-medium density. Between Van Buren and Peabody Streets, land use is designated as a mixture of both commercial-low density and residential-low density. Between Van Buren and Madison Streets, land use is designated as commercial-medium density and parks, recreation and open space.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

58 CHAPTER FOUR

detached dwellings, R-3 and R-4, row dwellings and flats, and R-5-A, low density apartments.

A small piece of overlay zone SSH/R-1-B (16th Street Heights), located between Rock Creek Park and the intersection of Georgia and Missouri Avenues, covers a 2-block area directly west of 14th Street between Montague and Kennedy Streets. (See glossary.)

Economic Development Within the Study Area

Projects under Construction

The Lofts at Brightwood

The Neighborhood Development Company is renovating the structure at the corner of Georgia and Missouri Avenues,

Between Madison and Kennedy Streets, land use is designated as a mixture of both commercial-low density and residential-moderate density.19

Zoning

Zoning has not changed along the Georgia Avenue corridor since 1958, when zoning was introduced in the District of Columbia.20 Nearly the entire Georgia Avenue corridor within the study area is zoned commercial; the rest of Brightwood is zoned residential. This zoning pattern is reflective of a neighborhood which developed around streetcars—a continuous commercial frontage district surrounded by residential enclaves.

Specifically, land within the study area is zoned C-2-A (community business center—moderate density) with the exception

of the area between Peabody and Madison Streets which is zoned C-3-A (medium bulk major business and employment). Two small areas are zoned GOV (major federal tracts: Battleground National Cemetery and Fort Circle Parks System land which intersects Georgia Avenue at Quackenbos Street). The northernmost portion of the study area between Van Buren and Aspen Streets is zoned R-5-A (low density apartments).21

The remaining land in Brightwood outside of the study area is zoned residential including R-1-B and R-2, single family

NW, which was built as Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, into 32 residential units with street level retail space including the Meridian Restaurant and Bar, a sit-down, full-service restaurant. An early 2007 completion date is expected.

Brightwood Elementary School

This 1926 school building at 13th and Nicholson Streets is being modernized and expanded in a three-phase construction process. When completed, it will be the first school built directly by the District of

Figure 41: The Lofts at Brightwood

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FOUR 59

Avenue is located directly north of the study area.22

The Upper Georgia Avenue Commercial Corridor Vision Plan, released in June 2000, describes a restructuring of this area to yield a safe, vibrant, and attractive mixed-use district reflecting the culture of the surrounding community while addressing its needs. Characteristics of the plan include retail activity centers on the north and south, new housing in between, a localized shuttle bus system, a satellite police station, and streetscape improvements. As a result of restructuring efforts outlined in the Strategic Planning Objectives for the Gateway-Georgia Avenue Revitalization Corporation, released in May 2000, this CDC calls for a lively and varied small business community with new multi-family housing, new business construction, and improved commercial storefronts. The Upper Georgia Avenue

Columbia Public Schools in nearly three decades. New features will include a gym, cafeteria, media center, art and music rooms, occupational and physical therapy rooms, health and administrative suites, and a handicap-accessible entry.

Planned Projects

Park East Condos

Located at 6428 Georgia Avenue at Piney Branch Road, Park East Condos is a five-story, 43-unit condominium project being developed by Ellis-Denning. This new development is expected to be completed in late 2007.

13th and Peabody Streets, NW

Two apartment buildings on this block have been purchased for renovation as

condominiums.

Major Economic Development Adjacent to the Study Area

Gateway-Georgia Avenue

The Gateway-Georgia Avenue Revitalization Corporation is a Community Development Corporation (CDC) chartered in 1997 to spearhead revitalization along the Upper Georgia Avenue commercial corridor between Fern Place to the south and Eastern Avenue to the north. This portion of Georgia

Commercial Corridor, just north of the study area, has been designated a National Main Street corridor by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s National Main Street Center.23

Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) Campus

WRAMC at 6900 Georgia Avenue NW is located in the Shepherd Park neighborhood at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Aspen Street and is adjacent to and directly north of the study area. This

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

60 CHAPTER FOUR

Street in an area southeast of the study area. This 77-acre campus is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites and designated as a District of Columbia Historic District, “The Soldier’s Home National Historic Site.” The site has been listed as a “Most Endangered Place for 2006” by the DC Preservation League.

Congress has mandated that AFRH, managed by the United States Soldiers and Airmen’s Home, become financially self-sufficient. In order to raise the needed funds to support the care of its veterans, AFRH solicited proposals from private developers. Three have been asked to provide detailed plans. The draft master plan prepared by the GSA incorporates shops, housing, and offices for research and development with some buildings as tall as 130 feet. While the involvement of city agencies such as the

110-acre campus is home to a large number of brick Georgian buildings. Walter Reed serves approximately 16,000 patients each year. In November 2005, WRAMC was directed to close and the entire site will be conveyed to the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of State (DOS).

WRAMC will not vacate the site until 2011. Until then, GSA intends to secure office space on the northern portion of the campus, and DOS proposes chancery and ancillary uses for the rest of the site. The District of Columbia is consulting with federal officials on several issues including historic preservation, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and traffic circulation. The Office of Planning has developed a project scope for a base reuse plan and community participation strategy. The Office of Planning endeavors to work collaboratively with DOS and GSA to ensure that future development

is sensitive to the existing character of the Brightwood and Shepherd Park neighborhoods and brings benefits to the entire district. The DC Preservation League has listed the site on its “Most Endangered Places for 2006” to encourage city and federal officials to create a preservation plan that will help avoid neglect or overdevelopment.

Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)

AFRH, also known as the “Soldiers’ Home,” is located between North Capitol Street, Rock Creek Church Road, and Irving

Office of Planning as well as residents and elected officials is expected to ensure that appropriate development and conservation occur on the site, the DC Preservation League is concerned that the scale of the plan would be far more dense than that of the adjacent residential areas and would cause a loss of green space around Washington.

Endnotes1. National Capital Planning

Commission, “Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements.”

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FOUR 61

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. National Park Service, Fort Circle

Parks: Final Management Plan.5. Ibid.6. District of Columbia Office of

Planning, Comprehensive Plan, 1998.7. Ibid.8. District of Columbia Office of

Planning, “A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City.”

9. Ibid.10. Ibid.11. District of Columbia Deputy

Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, “Great Streets Initiative.”

12. Ibid.13. National Park Service, Heritage

Preservation Services, Plan Profile: District of Columbia, “District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan,

2000. 14. Ibid.15. District of Columbia Office of

Planning, “Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan: Cluster 17.”

16. Ibid.17. District of Columbia Office of

Planning, “Upper Georgia Land Development Plan.”

18. District of Columbia Office of Zoning, “Zoning the Nation’s Capital.”

19. Ibid.

20. Anita Hairston, Email to Christina Hiett, November 17, 2006.

21. “Zoning the Nation’s Capital.”22. “Gateway Georgia Avenue

Revitalization Corporation” online.23. Ibid.

CHAP

TER F

IVESA

VIN

G B

RIG

HT

WO

OD

’S

PAST

FO

R I

TS F

UT

UR

E

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

64 CHAPTER FIVE

The Past: Inventory of Historic Resources

The studio team identified significant historic resources within the study area along Georgia Avenue. These resources have been inventoried in an effort to document their importance to the Brightwood community. Furthermore, these resources contribute to neighborhood character and the sense of place along Brightwood’s commercial corridor.

Identification of the significant resources within the study area began with an introduction to the neighborhood and a walking tour given by community members. After this initial introduction, the studio team familiarized itself with the study area. The existing conditions of potential historic resources were documented through photography. The history of these potential resources was then researched using

primary and secondary sources including deeds, building permits, architectural drawings, maps, historic photographs, books, newspaper articles, and interviews. This history helped the studio team to identify the most significant historic resources in the neighborhood. In order to create a standard for determining significance and integrity, the studio team used the National Parks Service’s National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Significance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation. An age of 50 years or older qualified a resource as historic. After comparing the potential historic resources within the study area to these standards, 28 resources were identified as historically significant within the study area. (These sites can be located on the map provided on page 66.)

Integrity has been classified using the terms good, fair, and poor. Resources with a

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 65

good classification retain a majority of their architectural fabric and, therefore, have a high degree of integrity. Resources that have had a significant number of alterations made to their historic fabric and have lost a large amount of integrity have been given a classification of fair. Resources that have little to no integrity are classified as poor. These classifications help to quantify the amount of historic character that a resource retains.

The 28 historic resources identified within the study area are divided into two sub-groups. These groups consist of landmark and contributing resources. The landmark resources embody those sites that are highly significant to the history of Brightwood. While some of these resources may be eligible for Washington, DC or national landmark status, the studio team used the term landmark to emphasize the importance of these historic resources to the character

of the study area. Of the 28 significant resources identified within the study area, 14 are landmark resources. The contributing resources are historic properties that may not be historically or architecturally significant but exhibit a high degree of integrity. These contributing resources help to maintain the historic character of the study area.

This inventory should not be considered comprehensive. It is designed to be used as a list of historic resources that should be preserved in order to maintain Brightwood’s historic character and sense of place. This list can be seen as a starting point for the community as it moves to identify and document all remaining historic resources within the neighborhood.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

66 CHAPTER FIVE

Landmark Resources1 Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24 5832 Georgia Avenue2 Fire Engine Company 22

5760 Georgia Avenue3 Fort Stevens

13th & Quackenbos Streets4 Battleground National Cemetery

6625 Georgia Avenue5 Emery Park

5701 Georgia Avenue6 Military Road School 1375 Missouri Avenue7 Emory United Methodist Church 6100 Georgia Avenue8 Church of the Nativity 6000 Georgia Avenue9 Brightwood Park (District) Madison Street & Shepherd Road, Georgia Avenue, 4th Street, & Jefferson Street10 Fort Stevens Ridge (District)

5th Street, 9th Street, Tewkesbury Place, & Quackenbos Street11 Additional Wardman Houses 5622-5626 13th Street 1300 Block of Sheridan Street12 Lightfoot House 1329 Missouri Avenue13 Bank of Brightwood 5913 Georgia Avenue14 Sheridan Theater & Park ‘n’ Shop 6201-6219 Georgia Avenue

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 67

Contributing Resources15 Fourth District Police Station

6001 Georgia Avenue16 Brightwood Elementary School

13th & Nicholson Streets Education

17 Paul Public Charter School 8th & Oglethorpe Streets

18 Agudath Achim Synagogue/St. John United Baptist Church 6343 13th Street

19 House at Emory United Methodist Church

6120 Georgia Avenue20 Joseph Abel Apartments

5741 Colorado Avenue & 5912 14th Street

21 Shopping Center 6119-6127 Georgia Avenue

22 Shopping Center 5722 Georgia Avenue

23 Seven Seas Restaurant

5915 Georgia Avenue24 Car Barn/Curtis Chevrolet

5929 Georgia Avenue25 Shopping Center

6129-6139 Georgia Avenue26 Shopping Center

5822-5828 Georgia Avenue27 Posin’s Bakery & Delicatessen

5756 Georgia Avenue28 Snead’s Funeral Home/

Huntemann Funeral Home 5732 Georgia Avenue

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

68 CHAPTER FIVE

Brightwood community contributed to the rehabilitation of the former lodge building by the Neighborhood Development Company starting in early 2006. The former Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, along with a new addition, is currently being rehabilitated as 32 loft condominiums.

Architectural Description:

Standing 52 feet high, the solid block structure has continuous fenestration that wraps around all four façades of the building. The main, or west façade, is five bays wide. The three-story fenestration pattern creates a tall rectangular shape, providing an illusion of height and mass to the primarily horizontal building. The rectangular fenestration is capped by half-round windows one story in height. Horizontal ribbon windows provide light and air circulation at the top of the building. Built for functionality

Overview:

Designed by Mason and architect Frank Russell White, the three-story, fireproof, limestone building at 5832 Georgia Avenue was constructed in 1919 -1920 for $130,000 as the second Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24.1 An earlier Stansbury Lodge building, once home to the Brightwood Hotel, underwent alteration with changes in the District of Columbia’s street alignment.2 This accounts for the irregular, trapezoidal shape of the lot on which the current lodge sits. The present lodge is designed in the neoclassical revival style typical of civic buildings during the early 20th century. The structure housed the post office and several retail establishments.3 It also functioned as a meeting place for community groups and religious congregations. In the 1960s the District of Columbia notified

the Masons of plans to widen Missouri Avenue and raze the lodge. Although these plans were eventually withdrawn, fear of demolition drove out the renters. In the 1970s, the members of the Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24 began meeting with fellow Masons in Takoma Park.4 The lodge then became home to a variety of commercial entities, the most infamous being the Ibex Club. The Ibex Club gained notoriety in 1997 when Metropolitan Police Officer Brian Gibson was fatally shot while sitting in his unmarked patrol car in front of the club. Revitalization efforts in the

with efficient construction, the Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24 was completed within a year and has minimal adornment. The only exception is the Masonic “square and compass” symbol repeated along the frieze at the top of the building.5

Historically, the interior of the lodge was divided into three floors. The first floor was originally used as commercial space. The second floor housed an auditorium, banquet hall, kitchen, and dressing rooms. The third floor was reserved for the Masons. The original main lodge space on the third floor

1. Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24Resource Address:5832 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Mason Frank Russell White, ArchitectMason Edward A. Burnap, BuilderBuilding Type: Commercial (original)Residential (current)Date of Construction:1919-1920Location:Square 2937, Lot 819Integrity:FairStatus: Not Listed

Figure 42: Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 69

outstanding Masonic architecture, and for its prominence within the Brightwood neighborhood. Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and General John J. Pershing of World War I fame, were present at the groundbreaking of the second lodge on October 29, 1919.8

Roosevelt went on to become the 32nd President of the United States, serving in that capacity from 1933-1945. Extensive documentation, both photographic and written, of the groundbreaking celebration highlighted Roosevelt’s presence. Roosevelt noted at the occasion, “It has gotten so now that no Masonic temple can be erected unless there is some member of the Roosevelt clan present at the laying of the cornerstone.”9

Additionally, Grand Master Henry C. Stein tapped the cornerstone into place with the “gavel used by General Washington, when he laid the cornerstone of the U. S. Capitol.”10

was adorned with the finest materials of its time, “decorated in silver with blue curtains and carpets to match, the center of the floor is of black and gray marble with the symbolic tessellated boarder.”6 The furniture was solid mahogany, “the chairs to be occupied by the master and wardens were said to be the handsomest that ever ornamented a Masonic Lodge room. The Worshipful Master sat to the east, the brotherhood sat to the north and south, and the entry and dressing rooms were to the west.”7

Integrity:

Because of the rehabilitation of the building into condominiums, much of the historic fabric has been lost. This adaptation to the interior caused the loss of all interior historic fabric and decorative elements.

The exterior of the Stansbury

Masonic Lodge, Number 24 retains a high degree of integrity. New window construction is the only significant exterior alteration. The physical locations of the windows remain the same. The limestone façade retains much of its overall form and fenestration. The building retains a fair degree of integrity and reinforces the neighborhood character.

Significance:

The Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24, is significant for its association with national historic figures, for its

The monumental architecture of the second lodge building identifies it as a Masonic structure. Constructed 1919 through 1920, the Stansbury Masonic Lodge Number 24 is built in a neoclassical revival style with a standard Masonic Lodge interior layout and is an outstanding example of grand Masonic architecture. As one of the largest and most easily recognizable buildings in the neighborhood, the Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24 has anchored Brightwood for nearly 90 years.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

70 CHAPTER FIVE

Endnotes:1. The Washington Evening Star, DC

Grand Lodge Vertical Files: Masonic Articles, 1919 -1920.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. Collins, J. Alfred et al, “The History

of Stansbury Lodge No. 24, F. A. A. M. Brightwood, D.C.: One Hundredth Anniversary.”

5. Ibid.6. DC Grand Lodge Vertical Files:

Masonic Articles. 7. Ibid.8. Collins et al.9. “Cornerstone Laid for Brightwood

Masonic Temple,” The Washington Evening Star.

10. DC Grand Lodge Vertical Files: Masonic Articles.

-

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 71

2. Fire Engine Company 22Resource Address:

5760 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:

UnknownBuilding Type:

CivilDate of Construction:

1897Location:

Square 2935Integrity:

GoodStatus:

Pending DC Historic Landmark Designation

Overview:

In 1897 a firehouse was built in Brightwood for Washington, DC’s Chemical Engine Company 2. In 1907 this company added a ladder truck but was quickly disbanded due to the creation of Engine Company 22 and Truck Company 11.1 Fire Engine Company 22 is one of the 29 firehouses built in Washington, DC prior to World War II that still functions today.2

Architectural Description:

The east, or front, façade is located on Georgia Avenue. This Italianate firehouse is of masonry construction, predominantly red brick, and is two-and-a-half stories tall with three bays. The original firehouse consisted of only two bays; the third was added in 1908. Despite this addition, the front façade

Significance:

Fire Engine Company 22 is significant for its contributions to the history of Brightwood and the city of Washington, DC. The firehouse was built due to the expansion of Washington, DC into the surrounding rural areas as the city’s population increased. Like other firehouses in the District of Columbia, it was designed to blend in with the surrounding domestic and light retail architecture. It served the fire safety needs of the community and acted as a center for social activity.3 The firehouse

original two bays and one window in the third bay. The casings on all these windows are painted white. The north elevation shares a party wall with a commercial building, while the south elevation remains unattached.

Integrity:

The addition of the third bay and renovation of the east façade comprise the principal alterations to the exterior of the firehouse. These alterations have become historic in their own right and have not drastically altered the historic fabric. The interior continues to remain intact. While there have been some modifications made to both the exterior and interior, these alterations have not drastically disrupted the historic fabric of the structure. Overall, the firehouse is in good condition and retains a high degree of integrity.

is still mostly symmetrical. The building has a flat roof, and a simple bracketed cornice lines the top of the east elevation. On the first level, three large, red fire equipment doors punctuate the elevation. The east façade was rebuilt in the 1940s to accommodate larger trucks. Above each of the equipment doors on the second level is a grouping of two single-hung, one-over-one windows. A white crown molding tops off each grouping. Between the second and third levels, a painted white stringcourse runs the length of the façade. Four small fixed windows are located on the third level, three in the Figure 43: Fire Engine Company 22

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

72 CHAPTER FIVE

was designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood of Brightwood. The structure is an excellent example of the eclectic firehouse architectural style. Most importantly, Fire Engine Company 22 has operated out of its original building for over 100 years, making it the oldest active firehouse in Washington, DC.

Endnotes:1. Firefighters Association of the District

of Columbia, 100 Years of Glory: A History of the DC Fire Department, 1871-1971.

2. DC Preservation League, “Tour of the Pre-World War II Firehouses.”

3. Ibid.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 73

marked the end of his invasion of Maryland, as well as the last serious Confederate advance into the North. During the battle, President Lincoln traveled to the fort and was targeted by Confederate sharpshooters, marking the only occasion when a sitting US President came under enemy fire during wartime.3

Following the close of the Civil War, the fate of the fortification system was uncertain. The government temporarily chose to maintain 25 of the 68 forts. This number was soon reduced to a mere 11 sites.4 All of the Civil War fortifications fell into a state of disrepair with many completely demolished after the end of the war. Fort Stevens fared no better than the rest and was at one time used as a trash dump. The 1887 Hopkins Map depicts the remaining one-third of Fort Stevens. By that year, only the western edge of the fort was still standing.

Overview:

When the Civil War broke out in April 1861, Washington, DC was almost completely undefended. By the war’s end four years later, the national capital stood as the best defended city in the world, ringed by a total of 68 forts armed with 807 cannons and 98 mortars, and 93 unarmed batteries for field guns.1 One such fortification, Fort Massachusetts, was named after the home state of the Union soldiers who built it. By the end of summer 1861, its location north of Milkhouse Ford Road, now Rock Creek Ford Road, along the strategically important 7th Street Turnpike had been established and construction efforts got underway. After being enlarged, the fort was renamed Fort Stevens on April 1, 1863, in honor of Brigadier General Isaac Ingalls Stevens, killed at the Battle of Chantilly, Virginia on

September 1, 1862.2

On the evening of July 11, 1864 Confederate General Jubal A. Early led an approximately 20,000 man force down the 7th Street Turnpike from Silver Spring, Maryland and began preparations to assault Fort Stevens the following day. During the night, veterans from the 25th New York Cavalry and the 98th, 102nd, and 139th Pennsylvania Volunteers arrived to bolster the defenses. Early retreated on July 12 rather than commit to an assault on the now heavily defended fort, leaving only a few minor skirmishes to mark the Battle of Fort Stevens. Early’s defeat

In an effort to preserve the remaining third of Fort Stevens, “One man, William Van Zandt Cox, whose father lost his life in the war, bought a great deal of land and in May 1899 offered to donate the fort, provided he could ‘erect half a dozen neat, two-story, six-room frame houses on the part that does not in any way encroach upon the fortifications…’”5 Cox, president of the Brightwood Citizens’ Association, succeeded in building these houses, but they were demolished shortly thereafter.6 The federal government, however, did not begin its

3. Fort StevensResource Address:

13th & Quackenbos StreetsArchitect/Builder:

US War Department, CivilianConservation Corps., Builder

Building Type: Recreational

Date of Construction:1861-1863, 1937-1938

Location:Square 2940, Lot 0358

Integrity:Fair

Status:DC Historic Landmark

A member of the Fort Circle ParksNational Register Property

Figure 44: Fort Stevens

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

74 CHAPTER FIVE

Washington’s suburbs have grown around the fort and invade it. A small street crosses the parade ground of the fort… Part of the north face of the fortification which fronted the southern forces remains, though the breastworks have been considerably worn down and the fronting ditch half filled by the wear of the seasons.9

Following the property transfer, NPS landscape architect Robert P. McKean supervised the 1937 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) restoration of the extant one-third of the fort, including the portion of the parapet where Lincoln came under fire and the western magazine. This work, the only Washington-area fortification restoration project, was completed in 1938 at a total cost of $25,000.10

On July 15, 1974, Fort Stevens

efforts to reacquire the fort site until 1925. In the meantime, Cox continued his efforts to preserve the fort. On February 9, 1900, he led the Association in passing a resolution urging, “the property from and including Fort Stevens and the old rifle trenches [east] to Rock Creek Park be obtained by the United States or the District of Columbia, properly marked and sacredly preserved.”7 Cox’s personal efforts continued. On November 7, 1911, with 4,500 attendees on hand, he supervised the placement of a three-ton boulder atop the fort’s parapet to mark the spot where President Lincoln stood under fire. Several other organizations joined the Brightwood Avenue Citizens’ Association in its effort to preserve and memorialize Fort Stevens. On July 12, 1920, the Sixth Corps Association affixed a bronze bas-relief to the boulder, depicting President Lincoln, Surgeon Crawford, and General Wright under fire on the parapet. Later, in

September 1936 the Daughters of the Union, Veterans of the Civil War, and the Grand Army of the Republic added a bas-relief of the fort to the site.8

The National Park Service (NPS) assumed ownership of Fort Stevens in 1933, but by this time the deterioration was extensive. As early as 1911, the Evening Star reported

The ramparts of Fort Stevens have been leveled, with the exception of a section at the west end of the works.

and 16 additional Washington, DC Civil War fortifications were jointly listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today Fort Stevens remains among the best preserved. Although no NPS staff is stationed on the site, an interpretive sign explains the fort’s history, including its construction, defense of Washington, DC, association with President Lincoln, and restoration. Visitors tour the site, especially on Fort Stevens Day, a celebration held each July to commemorate the Battle of Fort Stevens. The event features lectures, historical information, and Civil War re-enactors, including President Lincoln,

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 75

Elizabeth Thomas, Union soldiers, and a regimental band.

Architectural Description:

As was the case with all of the defenses around Washington, army engineers designed Fort Stevens according to D. H. Mahan’s A Treatise on Field Fortifications, the foremost guide to fortification construction at the time. Soldiers, carpenters, teamsters, blacksmiths, conscripted slaves, and other laborers first cleared the site of trees, buildings, and other obstructions for up to two miles in order to remove all cover. Then they constructed fort walls (the parapet) by shoveling dirt into 12 to18 foot thick berms. The interior slope, or rampart, was lined with field and siege guns, and a dry ditch was dug around the fort’s perimeter. Beyond this ditch, the men erected an abitas, a barricade of sharpened trees facing outward. Inside the

Fort Stevens holds both national and local significance. As one of the best preserved of the Civil War fortifications of Washington, DC, it recalls the danger the national capital faced during the conflict. It is the site of the only Confederate attack on the city, as well as where President Lincoln came under fire. The 1937-1938 CCC restoration took place as part of the largest Depression-era work program, in which some three million young men participated nationwide. Fort Stevens was the only one of the Civil War fortifications of Washington, DC restored by the CCC.

fort, the magazine, a rounded structure of heavy timbers covered with ten or more feet of earth, protected the stores of ammunition and gunpowder, while a longer mound called the bombproof provided cover for the gun crews and officers.11

Today, approximately one-third of the fort remains, including the western magazine and that portion of the parapet where President Lincoln stood under fire. The dry ditch is no longer present. All or most of the extant fort dates to the 1937-1938 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) restoration. This

work “substituted concrete for the original wood magazine interior, gun platforms and revetments although they aptly duplicated the detail and style of the Civil War engineers.”12

Integrity:

Little or nothing of the original Fort Stevens remains today. The fort retains a fair degree of integrity as the 1937-1938 CCC restoration is historic in its own right and remains largely intact. The fort is, however, showing some signs of deterioration. Several of the 1938 concrete logs, or “falsies,” are in declining condition and in need of refurbishment. Because the site is open to the public and lacks a regular NPS staff, litter and occasional vandalism detract from the historic character of the fort.

Significance:

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

76 CHAPTER FIVE

9. National Park Service, “Fort Stevens.”10. National Park Service, A Historic

Resources Study.11. Ibid.; Handly, 15.12. Ibid.

Fort Stevens is also locally significant, serving as a fixture of the Brightwood neighborhood for 142 years. Even before the federal government recognized the fort as an important historic resource, William Van Zandt Cox and the citizens’ association had been actively engaged in preservation efforts at the site for over 30 years. Today, local residents continue to recognize Fort Stevens as a central component of Brightwood, and a key aspect of the community’s character and sense of place.

Endnotes:1. National Park Service, A Historic

Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I and II, by CEHP, Incorporated.

2. E.D. Townsend, “General Orders, No. 83.”

3. National Park Service, “Battleground

National Cemetery.”4. Jacqui Handly, Civil War Defenses of

Washington, DC: A Cultural Landscape Inventory.

5. National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study.

6. 1924 Baist Map shows the 6 frame houses and that the land was owned by Cox, 1931 Baist Map shows land owned by federal government and houses gone.

7. National Park Service, “Fort Stevens.”8. National Park Service, A Historic

Resources Study.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 77

superintendent’s lodge was enlarged with the construction of a second story in 1874, and again in 1930 with a one-story kitchen addition. Additional improvements added during this time included iron entrance gates, graveled walks around the graves, a well, and one-story brick maintenance building, which today contains public restrooms.5

During this period of construction and alteration several memorials were also installed. “Monuments to Union Army units that had served in the Battle of Fort Stevens were placed in Battleground National Cemetery as follows: Ninety-eighth Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry Regiment in 1891, One Hundred Twenty-second New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment in 1903, Company K, One Hundred-fiftieth Ohio National Guard Regiment in 1907, and the Twenty-fifth New York Volunteer Cavalry Regiment in 1914.”6 A large granite rostrum,

Overview:

Located one-half mile north of Fort Stevens and just over one acre in size, Battleground National Cemetery is one of the smallest and oldest national cemeteries in the United States. The cemetery was established shortly after the Battle of Fort Stevens, when Quartermaster Montgomery C. Meigs commandeered the land as the burial site for 40 of the 59 Union soldiers killed in the battle. Some accounts reported “President Lincoln selected and dedicated the approximate site for Battleground National Cemetery on the evening of July 12, 1864, shortly after the fighting ended.”1 Other sources hold that the location was not selected until later in July. Regardless, the federal government did not formally acquire title to the property until August 1, 1868, when the War Department was forced to pay landowner James Mullory $2,650.35 in

compensation.2

The 40 graves were arranged in a circle at the center of the cemetery grounds, originally enclosed by only a simple wooden fence. By late 1868 a wooden lodge housed the cemetery superintendent, Andrew McCarthy, and a year later the grounds were improved with a flagstaff and several trees and shrubs. The site, however, remained largely sparse and unadorned.3 In 1871, a one-story stone lodge replaced the original wooden structure, and a stone wall was constructed around the cemetery.4 The stone

dedicated May 30, 1921, has been used to celebrate Memorial Day ceremonies and mark the anniversary of the Battle of Fort Stevens.7

Major Edward R. Campbell, the last surviving veteran of the Battle of Fort Stevens, died in March 1936 at the age of 92 and became the final person buried in Battleground National Cemetery. Sarah A. Armbrecht, wife of cemetery superintendent Augustus Armbrecht, and three of their children had been previously interred in the 1870s, bringing the total number of burials

4. Battleground National CemeteryResource Address:

6625 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:

Montgomery C. Meigs, US War Department, Architect

Building Type: Cemetery

Date of Construction:1864-1871, 1874, 1891, 1903, 1907, 1914,

1921, 1930, 1936Location:

Square 2971, Lot 568Integrity:

GoodStatus:

DC Historic LandmarkNational Register Property

Figure 45: Battleground National Cemetery

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

78 CHAPTER FIVE

to 45.8 In 1933 Battleground National Cemetery was transferred from the War Department to the National Park Service (NPS).

Architectural Description:

Built in 1871 the superintendent’s lodge at Battleground National Cemetery is a small asymmetrical second empire Victorian cottage. The lodge is typical of the superintendents’ lodges designed by Montgomery C. Meigs found at other national cemeteries. The small structure is constructed of uncoursed ashlar stone. The footprint of the cottage is L-shaped, with a one room wing protruding forward from the main body of the house. The front, or west, façade includes the wing and a covered porch. The porch is simply adorned with Doric columns and a cornice at the edge of the roofline. Each façade of the building

contains a centered window on the first floor with a dormer window directly above at the second floor level. A brick kitchen addition was added to the rear of the house in the 1930s. The second story of the home has a mansard roof covered in hexagon slate shingles. The porch roof and shallow sloped main roof are covered in standing seam metal.

Integrity:

All of the significant historical elements of Battleground National

Cemetery remain in place today, including the gravestones, superintendent’s lodge, perimeter wall, entrance gates, restroom facilities, regimental monuments, and rostrum. However, by the 1980s, both the lodge and the grounds had deteriorated significantly. Despite a request for “immediate repairs to prevent further deterioration,” poor maintenance and lack of funding delayed the much-needed repairs until 1996-1997.9 Even then, this work was only a partial solution, as it concentrated on repairing damaged ceilings, painting, and other projects within the lodge. Little or no work was done on the exterior, despite the need to replace gutters, repoint mortar, repair and repaint wooden elements, install new chimney caps, and repair or replace portions of the slate roof. Consequently the building was closed and remains inaccessible to the public today.10 Important repairs to the grounds were not carried out.

As a result of these shortfalls, the DC Preservation League included Battleground National Cemetery in its list of most endangered places for both 2004 and 2005, noting in particular that, “The lodge, flagpole and ceremonial rostrum are in poor shape,” and, “There is no onsite professional staff to monitor the condition of the cemetery and the only routine maintenance done is lawn mowing.”11 However, in 2005-2006 the NPS allocated sufficient funds to stabilize and repaint the lodge’s exterior, clean and re-set the majority of the headstones, and

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 79

4. Ibid., 30.5. Oscar A. Mack, “Inspection Report,” September 18, 1874; National Park Service, “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment,” 34-35.6. National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I and II.7. National Park Service, “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment,” 38.8. Ibid., 34.9. National Park Service, “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment,” 40.10. Ibid., 41. 11. DC Preservation League, “Washington’s Most Endangered

wash and repair the monuments.12 Overall, Battleground National Cemetery retains a high degree of integrity. There are, however, still areas that require further attention, most notably the interior of the superintendent’s lodge. The lodge remains closed to the public, with the previous repair work aimed at stabilization, not restoration or rehabilitation.

Significance:

Battleground National Cemetery holds both national and local significance. It is nationally significant as the site of the Union burial ground following the 1864 Battle of Fort Stevens, its association with Montgomery C. Meigs, as well as the subsequent additions and memorialization efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The cemetery is also locally significant, serving as a focal point for the Brightwood

neighborhood for 142 years. Tourists interested in the Civil War and engineering history frequent the site, but much of its everyday use comes from members of the local community seeking a space for quiet reflection or a casual stroll.13

Endnotes:1. National Park Service, “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment,” 19.2. Ibid.3. Ibid., 29.

Places, 2004-2005.” 12. Perry Wheelock, Interview with Jonathan Pliska, September 25, 2006.13. Ibid.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

80 CHAPTER FIVE

After the Civil War, Emery used the estate as his summer residence until his death in 1901. By 1913 the property was bisected by 9th street, and its size had decreased from 12 acres to the present 7 acres. Emery Place remained in the possession of the Emery family until 1946, when the Washington, DC government used a $204,000 appropriation from Congress and other funding to purchase the estate. With the mansion in a severely deteriorated condition, the District demolished the residence in 1948, despite vehement protests from the members of the Brightwood community. Emery’s will stipulated that his estate was to be used for recreational and educational purposes. The present Emery Park and Recreation Center fulfills this intent.4

Architectural Description:

No historical architectural elements

Overview:

Emery Park comprises the northern half of a seven-acre parcel owned and operated by the District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation. The Emery Recreation Center, completed in 2003, occupies the south portion. Together, the two facilities are bounded by Missouri Avenue on the north, Madison Avenue on the south, 9th Street on the east, and Georgia Avenue on the west. The seven acres was originally located on property in a subdivision known as Peter’s Mill Seat which were in place by 1802 and subdivided by various businessmen. On August 12, 1859, Henry N. Landsdale sold the property to Matthew Gault Emery, a prominent builder, architect, and stonecutter.1

Emery built his country estate, Emery Place, on the site of the present Emery Park.

The 1861 Boschke topographical map lists the property as improved, and includes the outline of his grand, four-story mansion, the centerpiece of the 12-acre site.2 During the Civil War, Emery relinquished Emery Place to the Union Army for use as a headquarters building, and members of the 35th New York Volunteers bivouacked on the grounds. Located on a hill at an elevation of 280 feet above sea level, Emery Place served as an ideal signal station linking Fort Stevens with other strategic locations.3

remain above ground at Emery Park. Although demolished in 1948, the Emery Mansion was architecturally significant as an example of the grand country homes built in Brightwood during the mid-19th century. It was an impressive four-story French Empire-style structure that featured a mansard roof, cupola, and a two-story covered porch on the front, or west, side. Likewise, the grounds were well-landscaped and were described as containing “picturesque summer houses, trellises and arbors for vines, birdhouses, an old sundial, and a head of cannonballs… around the grounds bloom all the flowering

5. Emery ParkResource Address:5701 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Matthew Gault EmeryDC Department of Parks & Recreation, ArchitectBuilding Type: RecreationDate of Construction:1861, 1948, 2003Location:Square 2988Integrity:PoorStatus:Not Listed

Figure 46: Emery Park

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 81

shrubs and plants which one might expect to find in such a romantic place.”5 Today this landscape is much altered, although the large, mature oak trees may date from Matthew Gault Emery’s occupancy. The present Emery Park is relatively undeveloped save for a few picnic tables, freestanding grills and concrete pads. There are no paths.

Integrity:

With the possible exception of the oak trees, no trace of Emery Park’s history remains visible at the site. As such, the property retains a poor level of integrity. Without the interpretive sign that is located along Georgia Avenue explaining the history of Matthew Gault Emery and his country estate, Emery Park would seem unremarkable and largely interchangeable with any other small urban park.

Significance:

Emery Park is both nationally and locally significant. Nationally, its use as a Union signal station played an important role in the defense of Washington during the Civil War. It also retains local significance as the site of Emery Place, the estate of Matthew Gault Emery. During his career, Emery was involved in several major construction projects. Prior to the laying of the cornerstone of the Washington Monument in 1848, he “cut and dressed the stone free of charge,” and also “cut a sizeable hole in the

that Study Area D, located on the crest of the hill, contained the structural remains of the mansion, including a short section of brick wall, patches of concrete slab, and several associated rubble masses. Based on the findings of the subsurface remains, the study recommended that National Register status be secured for the land comprising Study Area D based on two historic contexts: Civil War and reconstruction and urban residential development.7 Presently, however, the site is not listed on either the National Register of Historic Places or the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites.

stone for a zinc case filled with memorabilia associated with the event.”6 He later served one year as the mayor of Washington City (1870-1871) prior to the installation of the territorial government. To this day Emery is still remembered as “Washington’s last mayor,” as the District of Columbia did not elect another mayor until home rule became effective in January of 1975. An important part of the Brightwood community for over 140 years, Emery Park currently provides residents with the largest tract of open space in the urban neighborhood.

Finally, Emery Park also retains significance in its archaeological resources. In 1986 the DC Department of Parks and Recreation conducted a Phase II archaeological study of the former Emery Place. The property, known at the time as Emery Playground, was subdivided into several study areas. Archaeologists discovered

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

82 CHAPTER FIVE

Endnotes:1. Crowell et al, “D.C. Department

of Recreation Project: Eight Recreation Areas Phase II,” 50, 52.

2. A. Boschke, Topographical Map of the District of Columbia: Survey in the Years 1856, 1857, 1858, and 1859.

3. Crowell et al, 50, 52.4. Ibid, 54, 56; Edward Ryan, “Death

and Rebirth of a Brightwood Mansion,” The Washington Post, October 6, 1946.

5. J. Harry Shannon, “With the Rambler,” The Sunday Star, April 23, 1916.

6. Louis Torres, To the Immortal Name and Memory of George Washington: The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Construction of the Washington Monument, 19.

7. Crowell et al, 60-62.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 83

6. Military Road SchoolResource Address:

1375 Missouri AvenueArchitect/Builder:

Snowden Ashford, Architect(Skinner & Garrett)

Building Type:Educational

Date of Construction:1911-1912Location:

Square 2792, Lot 87/536-537Integrity:

GoodStatus:

DC Historic LandmarkNational Register Property

Overview:

This building was constructed on Military Road in 1912 for the education of African American children. The Military Road School continued in this capacity until it closed in 1954 following the Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe decisions. Since then it has served a variety of functions, including as community center for the residents of the area, a school for special education, and a word processing training center for the Washington Urban League. Currently it is under renovation for use as the home of the Latin American Montessori Bilingual Charter School. In July of 1998, the school was placed on the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites. It was nominated and listed in the National Register of Historic Places on July 23, 2003.

Architectural Description:

The Military Road School is a rectangular, four-room red brick building. This two-story, Italian renaissance structure was designed in 1911 by the famous municipal architect, Snowden Ashford. Construction was completed in 1912. The south elevation is comprised of a central pavilion with a raised, projecting portico that is flanked at both sides with a cement staircase. The portico is supported by six wooden Doric columns. Above the portico on the second floor is a Palladian window with a arch and fan light with a smaller window on either side. The windows are

the school’s closure in 1954. The four classrooms originally had cloakrooms, but to accommodate the special education students in 1954, the cloakrooms were transformed into lavatories and storage spaces. A fire escape was also installed in the back of the building around that time. Three of the rooms remained as classrooms during the tenure of the Washington Urban League, while the fourth was redesigned as an office and conference space.”2

broad banks, nine-over-nine arranged in groups of four along the south elevation and in groups of three along the east side of the pavilion with decorative brick panels between the first and second stories. Both sides of the central doorway are flanked by four-over-four windows. The structure has a gable roof that is supported by deep eaves and wooden brackets. The masonry building consists of mostly red brick trimmed with wood and limestone. “The original wooden doors on the south elevation still remain and are intact; they are described as two adjacent double doors under six light transoms. Carved stone panels with swags adorn the area above the transoms. The original metal grills separate each double door.”1

The interior of the school has been modified based on the use of the space since the school closed. “The fabric of the original interior has changed slightly since

Figure 46: Military Road School

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

84 CHAPTER FIVE

2. Military Road School, “Application for the District of Columbia’s Inventory of Historic Places.”

3. Alumni Association of the Military Road School, “Statement of Historic Significance.”

4. “Architect of the Everyday,” The Washington Post, November 6, 2005.

Integrity:

Although there have been some alterations to the structure since 1954, the historic fabric remains predominantly intact. The few modifications made to the building disrupted a minimal amount of historic fabric. The Military Road School retains its original appearance and has a high degree of architectural integrity.

Significance:

The Military Road School is locally significant. It was the only all-black school in the upper northwest section of the District of Columbia for many years.3 Children from all over the area, including Silver Spring and Takoma Park, Maryland attended the Military Road School because it was their only opportunity for an education. It also had the distinction of being the smallest

public school building in DC. Additionally, the architect of the Military Road School, Snowden Ashford, was a renowned municipal architect for the city of Washington, DC. Ashford was known for his school and firehouse designs including the Crummel School (1912) and the Congress Heights School (1897; 1913). In 1906 he became the inspector of buildings for the District.4

Endnotes:1. District of Columbia Public

Schools, Historic Preservation Division, “School Building Survey.”

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 85

In 1856 a red brick church was erected on the site of the present Emory United Methodist Church. The building was described as “a very neat and commodious building, splendidly equipped and furnished for its day.”5 During the Civil War, the red brick church was torn down to accommodate Fort Stevens, and members again worshiped in their homes, holding prayer services whenever possible. After the war, in “the latter part of 1865 a few faithful men and women of the community fixed up and used one of the abandoned [Ft. Stevens] barracks as a place of prayer and praise.”6 This event began the reorganization and revival of the church congregation.

A stone chapel was built on the site of the former red brick church. Charles Vance, a devout member of the Methodist church in Bladensburg, Maryland, built the chapel in 1867. In 1907 a frame building was built at

Overview:

Emory United Methodist Church was founded in 1832. Named for Bishop John Emory, its congregation was historically comprised of local residents. Prior to 1832 an unofficial church existed with members worshiping in the homes of their fellow parishioners. That year Abner C. Pierce gave use of “a lot of ground containing half an acre for the purpose of a school and church for the convenience of the neighborhood.”1

A small log building was constructed from the trees that had been “felled to make a clearing for the new Church site.”2 By 1843 the growing congregation required additional space. The original log building was razed and a simple two-story frame meeting house erected. The original Church of the Nativity at 6000 Georgia Avenue now sits on the site of the log building.

In 1853 the congregation rescinded its affiliation from the Methodist Episcopal Church to join the Virginia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South in order to support the institution of slavery. Virginia Conference records state that “a vast majority of the people at Emory Chapel were sympathetic to the southern viewpoint.”3 In 1856, however, it was noted that Emory’s congregation included 72 members: 59 white and 13 black. This integration is ironic considering the Church’s membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church South and its support of slavery.4

the rear of the stone chapel for use as the new Sunday school.7 This frame building, later modernized, is still in use today.

Frank Genechesi constructed the current Emory United Methodist Church between 1922 and 1924 at a cost in excess of $80,000.8 The stone chapel was demolished to make way for this new building. This most recent church is constructed out of rough hewn grey stone with ashlar columns and trim. In 1950 both the Sunday school building and the church were remodeled and modernized. By 1962 the congregation

7. Emory United Methodist ChurchResource Address:

6100 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:

Frank Genechesi, BuilderBuilding Type:

ReligiousDate of Construction:

1922-1924Location:

Square 2940, Lot 802Integrity:

GoodStatus:

Not Listed

Figure 48: Emory United Methodist Church

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

86 CHAPTER FIVE

had begun to shrink as its white members moved from Brightwood to more distant suburbs.9 Today, with a primarily African American membership, Emory United Methodist Church boasts a flourishing congregation that provides assistance and support to the community. Currently, Emory United Methodist provides regular outreach programs to its members, residents of the community, and the homeless.

Architectural Description:

Emory United Methodist Church is constructed in the colonial revival style popular during the early 20th century. Consistent with this style, the main façade’s focal point is its four classical Roman Doric columns constructed of ashlar stone. The columns are composed of smooth shafts with simple capitals and are set on a base that is approximately one foot high. The columns

form a portico for the entrance, while adding a vertical element to the building. They provide contrast and adornment to the more multi-colored and rough stone structure. Four smooth pilasters are attached to the front façade directly behind the columns and continue behind the pediment to the false cornice above. Additionally, an unadorned architrave runs the length of the front façade and returns on itself. Above the architrave rests the frieze, on which “Emory Methodist Church” is inscribed. The pediment is trimmed with dentils, completing the colonial revival detailing.

Designed in keeping with a Classical temple, the main entrance door is centered on the east façade and flanked by secondary doors of equal dimensions. The entry way is simple with post and lintel stone detailing above the doorway. The front façade contains three small boarded windows on the second story under the portico. The portico is flanked by concealed stair towers each containing a tall, narrow, one over one, double hung window on the second story. Entrance doors beneath these windows provide access to the stairwells.

At the sanctuary level, the north and south façades consist of five evenly spaced windows per side. The three center windows are tall, wide, two-over-two, double-hung windows with arched transoms. The smaller windows at each end of the building are narrow, one-over-one double hung windows

with no transoms. Directly below each of these windows are basement window openings of the same width. The cornice medallions and dentil moldings continue along this façade at the roof line.

The rear Sunday school addition, built in 1907, was altered in the 1950s to modernize the structure. The exterior is simple, built in a vernacular architectural style, possibly inspired by the former parsonage that stood on the site. Fenestration of this addition varies from façade to façade with mostly double-hung, two-over-two

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 87

1864 Civil War battle fought there. The red brick church building was commandeered and eventually razed to build Fort Stevens. The congregation, however, rebuilt after the battle. The church has been an important institution in Brightwood for over 164 years. The history of the church parallels the history of the community. The current church is architecturally significant as an excellent example of colonial revival ecclesiastic architecture.

Endnotes:1. “Laura Collison Ray, H.T. Waesche,

and Gerald E. Keene, “A History of Emory Methodist Church, 1832-1962.”

2. “Emory Methodist to Celebrate Anniversary,” The Washington Evening Star, November 15, 1952.

3. “Church to Mark Anniversary,” The Washington Evening Star,

windows. The rear, western-facing façade overlooks Fort Stevens. This façade shows many ghosts where former windows were infilled. The exterior is unpainted stucco with a dash finish. The trim is painted white.

The church interior is minimally adorned with the exception of a large rose memorial window in shades of red, which contains seven medallions symbolic of the Apostles Creed. L. Von Gerichten of Columbus, Ohio designed and constructed this window for Emory Church. Placed in the west wall, the window is a memorial to James Enos Ray, Jr. and his parents and grandparents. The rest of the interior space has been altered several times to accommodate the needs of the congregation.

Integrity:

The existing and most recent church

built in 1922 retains a high degree of integrity despite modernizations in the 1950s. The exterior façade is largely unaltered with many of the cosmetic and systems upgrades affecting only the interior. Emory United Methodist Church retains a high degree of integrity.

Significance:

Emory United Methodist Church is both nationally and locally significant. The church is nationally significant because of its association with Fort Stevens and the

October 1, 1932.4. Ray, Waesche, and Keene.5. Ibid.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Ibid.9. Ibid.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

88 CHAPTER FIVE

at the east end of the roof ridge. Spanning the north, south, and west façades is a red-painted brick foundation which corresponds to the lower level. White aluminum siding covers the exterior of the first floor; however, photographs from 1901 show the exterior as painted clapboard.

The main façade faces east onto Georgia Avenue. Originally, two sets of double-doors were evenly placed on this façade with each set featuring a gothic arched window directly above it. A larger gothic arched window was centered between the doors, and a circular vent was located above this window. Today, this façade is comprised of two single doors placed in the position of the original doorways and a smaller vent has taken the place of the larger vent. Aluminum siding covers the area where the window was originally located. A concrete ramp adjoins the southern door. The fenestration on the

Overview:

In 1897 a group of men headed by Brightwood residents Harry Daly and Louis Shoemaker began to pursue the possibility of establishing a Catholic church in the neighborhood with the assistance of Father Rosensteel, who eventually became the founder of the first Nativity Parish. In 1899 the community received permission from Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore, Maryland to form a congregation, and a one-story church opened on February 3, 1901, at 6000 Georgia Avenue.1 In 1924 a large Romanesque-inspired brick building at 6008 Georgia Avenue was built to accommodate the congregation and a Catholic school. This structure now serves as the Nativity Catholic Academy. As the congregation grew, an even larger church was needed. In 1940 construction began on the Gothic church located at 6001 13th Street. The building

was completed in 1942 and still serves the congregation today.

Architectural Description:

Original Church

The first Church of the Nativity, a one-story, front-gabled frame structure, was built in 1901. The structure’s low-sloped roof is clad with asphalt shingles; however, a 1916 Sanborn fire insurance map shows the roof as being either slate or metal. A steeple with a square base and pyramidal roof is positioned

north and south façades is identical: six evenly-placed, single-hung sash windows and four evenly-placed, single-hung sash windows on the lower level. The west façade features a red-brick addition which serves as a rear entrance.

Present Church

The present Church of the Nativity is an outstanding example of gothic-style architecture in the manner of rural England and Ireland.2 This two-story structure is faced with square-cut, coursed ashlar stone, and

8. Church of the NativityOriginal ChurchResource Address:6000 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: ReligiousDate of Construction:1900-1901Location:Square 2939, Lot 0802Integrity:PoorStatus:Not Listed

Figure 48: Original Church of the Nativity

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 89

The original 1901 structure has had many alterations which have drastically affected the integrity of its historic fabric, including the loss of original features, such as pointed-arched doorways and windows, and the introduction of aluminum siding. Due to these alterations, the original church has a poor level of integrity.

Significance:

The 1901 structure was established by two of Brightwood’s most prominent residents, Harry Daly and Louis Shoemaker. While both owned considerable property in the community, Daly donated land (about 54,714 square feet) to be used for a church for the Catholics of the neighborhood.3 At the time of its construction, it was the first and only Catholic church in Brightwood. The present Church of the Nativity is significant for its architectural style. Elements

its steeply-pitched gable roof is covered with slate. The main façade, or west elevation, consists of a central portion with two side-gabled transepts on either side. Adjoining each transept is a hipped-roof polygonal bay. The central portion is dominated by a rose window with curvilinear tracery. Four corner buttresses are located on either side of the central portion and the transepts. The peak of the gable features a cross and at each end of the gable is a pyramidal cupola. Three compound pointed arch portals with carved tympanums span the main elevation. The pediments depict the birth of Jesus, also known as “the Nativity.” Within each portal is a paneled double door with glazing. Above the portals on the transepts is a set of double lancet windows with pointed relieving arches.

The roof features a total of 11 gables: five on the south façade, four on the north, and one each on the east and west.

The fenestration on the south and north façades is similar. Both have a combination of pointed-arched, stained-glass windows, as well as one larger window with tracery. On the east façade there is a large, pointed-arched window with 15 stained glass panes. There is also one stone chimney on the north façade.

Integrity:

The present Church of the Nativity has remained unaltered since its construction and is in excellent condition. Based on these factors, it retains a high level of integrity.

reminiscent of the French cathedrals of Chartres and Beauvais were incorporated into the interior and exterior designs. The structure is the only gothic-style building in the neighborhood.

Endnotes:1. “Church of the Nativity.” Church

of the Nativity Archives: Historical Pamphlet, 1951.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.

Present ChurchResource Address:6001 13th Street

Architect/Builder:Murphy & Locraft Co. (Schneider & Spleidt

Co.)Building Type:

ReligiousDate of Construction:

1940-1942Location:

Square 2939, Lot 0811Integrity:

GoodStatus:

Not Listed

Figure 50: Present Church of the Nativity

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

90 CHAPTER FIVE

corner and odd-shaped lots.5 Germuiller’s houses were typically two-story brick and wood-framed houses with hip roofs.6

Integrity:

Most of the houses have remained unaltered with the exception of porch additions and window replacements. The integrity of Brightwood Park is good.

Significance:

Brightwood Park is historically significant as it represents the beginning of the evolution of Brightwood from a rural area to an urban community. Its development coincided with several important events in Washington: 1) the arrival of many new federal employees coupled with a local housing shortage, 2) the Highway Act of 1893 which provided a new road grid pattern

Overview:

In 1892, the development of Brightwood Park began when part of Archibald White’s property was sold. Approximately 33 blocks were divided into lots sized 50 by 150 feet.1 Many of the houses were developed by Diller B. Groff, who owned 231 lots out of 375 in 1893-1894.2

Groff usually sold the houses quickly after building them, owning a few at a time. Brightwood Park was also where Harry Wardman, one of the most prolific and prominent developers in Washington, DC from 1899-1938, got his start. With Nicholas Grimm as his architect, Wardman built six wood-framed houses on Longfellow Street, which still exist today. The development of Brightwood Park was very successful due to its proximity to the streetcar line. Advertisements for Brightwood Park building lots noted “Street Cars Pass the Property.”3

By 1894 thirty-four houses had been built in Brightwood Park, and by 1900 eighty-four houses had been built.4

Architectural Description:

Brightwood Park includes an eclectic range of two-story frame houses, bungalows, and brick duplexes. Wardman’s houses in Brightwood Park, designed by Grimm, were characterized by bay windows, a third-story dormer, and swag decorations. One of Groff’s architects was German-borm Julius Germuiller, who often designed houses for

more conducive to subdividing lots for development, and 3) an improved public infrastructure for water and sewer services.

Brightwood Park is also historically significant as a result of the involvement of developer Harry Wardman who built his first five houses in this development on Longfellow Street. Several Washington, DC neighborhoods developed by Wardman are local historic districts including Woodley Park and Cleveland Park.

9. Brightwood ParkResource Address:Bounded by Madison Street & Shepherd Road on the north, Georgia Avenue on the west, 4th Street on the east, and Jefferson Street on the southArchitect/Builder:Architects include-Julius Germuiller &Nicholas GrimmBuilders include- Diller B. Goff & Harry WardmanBuilding Type: ResidentialDate of Construction:1892-1906Location:Squares 2990-2993, 2995, 3152-3144, 3159, 3206-3207Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Figure 51: Houses in Brightwood Park

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 91

Endnotes:1. Katherine Grandine,

“Brightwood: Its Development and Suburbanization, 1800-1915,” 55.

2. Ibid., 58.3. Ibid., 55.4. Ibid., 59.5. Hazel P. Kreinheder, “Everywhere

You Look: German-American Sites in Washington, DC.”

6. Ibid.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

92 CHAPTER FIVE

reflect cost-cutting measures such as the omission of lunettes on the dormers and cast-panel decorations. The Fort Stevens Ridge development was very successful with substantial growth between 1927-1938 in the area from 7th to 9th Streets.

Architectural Description:

Generally, the houses are semi-detached, two-story brick structures with a front porch. They were designed in different, but compatible styles to provide a sense of individuality while maintaining harmony in appearance.6

Many were designed by Mihran Mesrobian, whose houses tended to be relatively large compared to other middle-class houses built in this area. His designs featured built-in, street-level garages located under porches.7 The houses were designed with

Overview:

Fort Stevens Ridge is a development of approximately 700 rowhouses and duplexes built in the 1920s and 1930s. The neighborhood is bordered by 5th and 9th Streets and by Tewkesbury Place and Quackenbos Street.1. Many of these houses were developed by Harry Wardman, one of the most prolific and prominent developers in Washington, DC from 1899-1938. He also built houses in Brightwood Park. Numerous architects designed houses in this development including Eugene Waggaman and Mihran Mesrobian.2

This neighborhood was designed for middle-income families, “Homes built for refined people of average means, including most of the advantages usually found in the more expensive localities…”3 As detailed in a 1925 advertisement, the houses featured

bright rooms, hardwood floors, and fine woodwork. Reportedly, the woodwork in the Wardman houses was excellent as Wardman had begun his career laying hardwood floors.4 Wardman owned an interest in a planing mill and wood-working company that enabled him to provide quality woodwork at lower prices.5

In 1929 Wardman suffered a financial setback and filed for bankruptcy. He was able to regroup during the Depression and created the Federal Construction Company and the DC Development Company. Some of his houses built in 1934 on Seventh Place

housewives in mind as they included white-enameled appliances and tiled bathrooms for ease of cleaning. Advertisements for this development highlighted its location as being within walking distance to stores, schools, churches, and streetcar lines.

Integrity:

Most of the houses have remained unaltered with the exception of those with second-story modifications, window replacements and additional decorative features. As a whole, the exteriors of the

10. Fort Stevens RidgeResource Address:Bounded by 5th & 9th Streets, TewkesburyPlace, & Quackenbos StreetArchitect/Builder:Architects include Mihran Mesrobian &Eugene WaggamanBuilders include Harry WardmanBuilding Type: ResidentialDate of Construction:1924-1938Location:Squares 2976, 2980-2981, 3160-3162Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Figure 52: Fort Stevens Ridge

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 93

Endnotes:1. DC Preservation League.

Celebrating a Century of Wardman Row-house Neighborhoods.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid.4. Kevin Locke, Interview with Mary

Konsoulis, August 12, 2006.5. “Wardman Sells Homes on Ft.

Stevens Ridge,” The Washington Post, September 12, 1926.

6. “Wardman Has Sold 150 Units at Fort Stevens,” The Washington Post, July 12, 1925.7. DC Preservation League, Celebrating a Century of Wardman Row-house Neighborhoods.8. “Wardman’s World,” The Washington Post, October 14, 2005.

houses in Fort Stevens Ridge have retained their original features and character. The neighborhood integrity is good.

Significance:

The Fort Stevens Ridge development is significant for how it has defined the character and cultural history of Brightwood. It is also significant for its association with developer Harry Wardman and architect Mihran Mesrobian.

One of Washington, DC’s best-known developers, Harry Wardman, developed approximately 3,000 residences between 1899 to 1938.8 Harry Wardman died in 1938; the Fort Stevens Ridge development was among the last major projects of his career. Mihran Mesrobian was originally from Turkey. He was a trained architect who

had studied at the Academie des Beaux Arts in Istanbul. He immigrated to Washington, DC in 1921 and began working for Harry Wardman as a draftsman. His designs for houses in Fort Stevens Ridge were done relatively early in his career and he went on to design luxury hotels such as the Hay-Adams Hotel and Wardman Tower. He also designed art deco shopping centers such as the Glebe Shopping Center in Arlington, Virginia which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

94 CHAPTER FIVE

houses on Sheridan Street also incorporate front porches and attic dormers which are typical Wardman features.

Integrity:

While most of the houses have had window replacements, they are in good condition and retain a high level of integrity.

Significance:

These houses are both historically and architecturally significant. Historically, they represent housing designed for middle-income families in a post-World War I urban development. The use of the duplex and rowhouse typology enabled more housing to be built over a smaller area. These houses are also significant for the architects who designed them including Mihran Mesrobian and George T. Santmyers. Santmyers was a

Overview:

In addition to the Brightwood Park and Fort Stevens Ridge developments, Harry Wardman developed numerous other houses in the Brightwood community. On the south side of Sheridan Street, Wardman developed the houses from 1356-1378 with architect Mihran Mesrobian in 1929. He also developed the houses from 1352-1364 with Mesrobian under his new company, DC Development Company, in 1934. Other houses along Sheridan Street were designed by prominent Washington, DC architects such as George T. Santmyers who also designed some of the commercial buildings in Brightwood. Santmyers designed houses for Biron Brothers (1385-1391, 1375-1383, 1330-1391 Sheridan Street, built 1932-1935.) The houses at 1300-1308 Sheridan Street were built by Robert Canuso and designed by Charles Dillon in 1932. The houses at 1350-

1352 Sheridan Street were built by Harry Poretsky and designed by Dillon & Abel in 1935.1

Architectural Description:

In 1934 Wardman succeeded in securing a zoning regulation exception which enabled him to build two-story brick rowhouses on 13th and Madison Street. Mesrobian, serving as Wardman’s chief architect, designed rowhouses with articulated chimneys which define and unify their principal façades.2 The two-story brick

prominent Washington, DC architect who designed banks, public garages, residential houses, and apartments. He also designed a number of commercial buildings along Georgia Avenue in Brightwood.3

Endnotes:1. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office. Building Permit Database.2. DC Preservation League, Celebrating a Century of Wardman Row-house Neighborhoods.

11. Additional Wardman HousesResource Address:5622-5626 13th Street1300 Block of Sheridan StreetArchitect/Builder:Architects include George T. Santmyers & Mihran MesrobianBuilders include Harry WardmanBuilding Type: ResidentialDate of Construction:1927-1934Location:Squares 2798, 2789, 3200Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Figure 53: Wardman Rowhomes

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 95

3. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Property Inventory.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

96 CHAPTER FIVE

added to the structure, it retains only a fair level of integrity.

Significance:

The Lightfoot House is significant as a property associated with African American professor George M. Lightfoot who was a strong advocate for education in the African American community in Washington, DC. Professor Lightfoot was born in 1868 in Culpepper, Virginia.3 He came to Washington, DC to attend Howard University Academy and graduated in 1887. He then received a Bachelor’s degree from Williams College in 1891 and a Master’s degree from Catholic University in 1922. Professor Lightfoot taught Latin, history, German, French, and algebra at the Howard University Academy from 1891-1912. In 1912, he was named Professor of Latin in the College of Arts and Science, and

Overview:

This house has been in the George M. Lightfoot family for over 100 years.1 Originally built by F. Rex, it is believed to be one of the remaining structures once in the vicinity of the African American community of Vinegar Hill.2 In 1933, it was moved from its location on the Military Road School property to its current location at 1329 Missouri Avenue.

Architectural Description:

This two-story, five-bay house is four square in style and is embellished with vernacular elements. It has a hipped roof covered in asphalt and its principal façade is clad in asbestos shingles. Dominating the principal façade is a square dormer with a pagoda-like roof situated over the second story central window as well as a

first story Victorian-influenced wraparound porch with round porch posts and fan-like brackets. Symmetrically placed four-over-four sash windows are located on both the first and second stories in all five bays with the exception of a double-door entrance in the center of the first story. Two interior chimneys are located at either end of the hipped roof.

Integrity:

Because the house has been relocated from its original site and a porch has been

he served as the head of the Department of History and Director of the Summer School from 1925-1932. He also served on the Executive Committee for the American Negro Academy which was established by Rev. Alexander Crummel in 1897.4 Professor Lightfoot was very interested in philanthropic and charitable activities. In 1907, he was appointed to the District of Columbia Board of Charities.

Endnotes:1. Cultural Tourism DC, “African

American Heritage Trail.”

12. Lightfoot HouseResource Address:1329 Missouri AvenueArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: ResidentialDate of Construction:Circa 1880Location:Square 2792, Lot 0803Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

Figure 54: Lightfoot House

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 97

2. Brightwood Community Association Online.

3. “George Lightfoot Obituary,” The Washington Post, December 27, 1947.

4. “Negro Academy Holds 29th Annual Meeting,” The Washington Post, January 3, 1926.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

98 CHAPTER FIVE

Overview:

The Bank of Brightwood is a two-story limestone building chartered in 1922 and designed in 1923 by architects Arthur Blakeslee and John D. Wischousen. It is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Georgia and Missouri Avenues diagonally across from the Stansbury Masonic Lodge, Number 24. The Bank of Brightwood is a prominent neoclassical building anchoring this intersection as well as the Georgia Avenue corridor.

Architectural Description:

This building, faced with limestone, is an example of the neoclassical revival style. The west and main façades are dominated by four Corinthian engaged stone columns atop a large pedestal. The columns extend two stories and are topped

by the entablature which encircles the structure. The entablature’s architrave has three horizontal carved bands. Atop the architrave is a medallioned frieze, dentils, and a heavy cornice. A rectangular modern sign is positioned in the frieze above the two central columns.

This façade has three bays—the center bay is twice the width of the side bays. The second story of the central bay has a wide four-over-one window flanked on either side by a two-over-one window. The second story of each narrow side bay has a single double-

hung window. The southernmost is four-over-one while the northernmost is three-over-one. The side bays on the first floor feature a tall, narrow, triple-hung, nine-over-six-over-nine window. The central bay contains a glazed double entrance door flanked by eight-lighted sidelights. The arched transom window above these doors is reminiscent of a Palladian window. An archivolt with a centered medallion surrounds the central door. The casings and muntins of the windows are painted a vivid aqua blue.

The asymmetrical fenestration of the curved south façade mimics that of the front façade. The east façade is faced with brick. The north façade is not visible.

Integrity:

Although the building has had many uses since the bank dissolved in 1932, the

exterior is in good condition. While the windows are not original and the modern sign visually impacts the main façade, this structure retains a high degree of integrity. The interior was not accessible for evaluation as the building is vacant.

Significance:

The Bank of Brightwood was incorporated in 1922. It is significant in that it was one of only four banks closed in Washington, DC, due to bank failure during the Great Depression. The Bank of

13. Bank of BrightwoodResource Address:5913 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Arthur Blakeslee & John D. Wischousen,ArchitectsBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1922-1923Location:Square 2986, Lot 0861Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Figure 55: Bank of Brightwood

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 99

Brightwood was the first of these to close.1

This structure should be preserved as it is one of the few monumental buildings remaining from its time period in Brightwood. In addition, its existence as the only community bank is reflective of Brightwood’s prosperity at the time it was built. The building’s neoclassical revival architecture, while typical of its time, is rare today.

Endnotes:1. Sister Mary Alexine Beatty, Bank

Failures in the District of Columbia in the Twentieth Century.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

100 CHAPTER FIVE

of Theater West, an African American production company. It was subsequently used by the Black American Theater. By 1976 it had been converted to a church. It is currently a retail space, housing the Family Dollar store.

The Park ‘n Shop complex originally had eight storefronts adjoining the theater. The original stores located in the Park ‘n Shop were:5 6201-6203 S.H. Kresge 5&10 6205 Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company 6207 Carnell’s Beauty Shop 6209 Joseph Kipperman’s Women’s Furnishings 6211 John Noppinger Bakery 6213 People’s Hardware Company

6215 Edward Wortman

Overview:

The Sheridan Theater and Park ‘n Shop complex includes three stores on the east side of Georgia Avenue (6213, 6215, 6219) and five stores (6201, 6205, 6207, 6209, and 6211) situated behind the parking lot along Georgia Avenue. The entrance to the theater is at 6217 Georgia Avenue. This development was reportedly the first Park ’n Shop to integrate a movie theater.1

Movie theaters had become an exciting source of entertainment during the Depression in part due to the introduction of sound films in the l920s and the construction of theaters in neighborhoods that were often built by major movie studios.2 These theaters were often designed by well-known theater architects, such as John Eberson of New York and John Zink of Baltimore, Maryland.3

Millinery6219 Carl Edlen Menswear

Architectural Description:

The design of the complex is considered moderne. The theater and stores were constructed of brick on cinder block, concrete floor, and steel trusses.6 The stores varied in size with the two smallest stores adjacent to the entrance to the theater. The storefronts are unified with a strong cornice line with a row of stylized dentils running parallel combined with a repeating pattern

When the Sheridan Theater opened on January 14, 1937, it reflected the newest ideas in theater design with 1,000 seats on one floor and was the 15th Warner Brothers theater to open.4 The feature movie that evening was the Warner Brothers production Sing Me a Love Song with James Mellon, Patricia Ellis, and Hugh Herbert. The Sheridan Theater remained in business until 1968. In 1971, it was purchased by the Blackman’s Development Center and was used to rehabilitate drug and alcohol users through theater training. It later became the Crème Beaux Palace and was the site

14. Sheridan Theater & Park ‘n ShopResource Address:6201-6219 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:John Eberson, Architect (Theater)Morton Levy, Architect (Storefronts)Kass Realty, BuilderBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1936Location:Square 2979, Lot 0039Integrity:FairStatus:National Register Application completed but not submitted

Figure 56: Sheridan Theater & the Park ‘n Shop

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 101

entrance. The footprint of the complex, the upper level façade of the theater, and the vaulted roof of the theater remain. The Sheridan Theater and Park ‘n Shop complex retains a fair level of integrity.

Significance:

The Sheridan Theater and Park ‘n Shop are significant for their contributions to the development of automobile culture along Georgia Avenue, association with architect John Eberson, and distinctive art deco commercial styling.

Historically, this complex was one of the first in Washington, DC to offer a combined movie theater and shopping center in a residential neighborhood. Residential developers, such as Harry Wardman, advertised the convenience of walking to local stores when they were

of eight vertical lines rising from above the front door and protruding over the cornice line.7 This vertical ornamentation enhances the bold horizontal appearance of the main façade. The entire complex has modern illuminated signage which is secured to the west façade.8

The round-cornered false front above the theater entrance features four horizontal bands. Originally, this story accentuated the theater marquee. The tall, rectangular upper story is set back approximately 15 feet from the front of the lower story and with horizontal coursing. The theater has a vaulted roof, and the highest point of the roof is set back approximately 20 feet from the front of the section below. This design creates the effect of rising in steps which minimized the sensation of height while providing an auditorium that is two-and-one-half stories high.9

Integrity:

Although the theater has undergone some renovation, the exterior of the structure remains largely intact. In 1971 some of the seating was removed when the theater was converted to a traditional stage. The interior was changed during the 1976 church conversion. The front façade has also lost much of its integrity on the lower level as a result of the removal of the theater marquee and ticket office, the bricking-in of large picture windows, and the redesign of the

building in Brightwood. In addition, the rise of the automobile’s usage made commercial developments such as this popular. The theater also reflects the evolution of the motion picture industry to popular entertainment, arts, and culture. In the 1970s, the theater continued to be an important reflection of entertainment, art and culture in the African American community in Brightwood and surrounding areas. This combination of a theater and retail center became the predecessor for the modern day shopping mall and multiplex theater developments.10

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

102 CHAPTER FIVE

6. Sanborn Map, Map #662, 1960.7. Sefton, 1.8. Ibid., Section 7, 1.9. Ibid.10. Ibid., Section 10, 1.11. “John Eberson Obituary,” The New

York Times, March 7, 1954.12. Sefton, Section 10, 10.

This complex is also significant for its association with John Eberson, a well-known architect who designed over 500 theaters nationally and internationally. Born in Austria, he studied engineering at the University of Vienna, and is credited for designing the “atmospheric theater” style that was popular in the 1920s.11 He designed theaters in both New York and Paris.

By 1935-1936, Eberson’s designs had evolved to include curved, sweeping marquees, minimal ornamentation, and horizontal coursing. Each of these elements is prominently incorporated into the art deco architecture of the Sheridan Theater. It is one of three Eberson-designed theaters that remains essentially intact in the Washington, DC area. The others are the Highland Theater at 2340 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE and the Atlantic Theater at Atlantic and South Capitol Streets, SW.12

Endnotes:1. Douglas Peter Sefton, National

Register of Historic Places Draft Application for the Sheridan Theater and Park ‘n Shop, 3.

2. Ibid., 3.3. Ibid.4. Nelson B. Bell, “The Warner

Brothers’ New Sheridan Theater Opens Tonight as Fifteenth Unit in Local Theater Chain,” The Washington Post, January 14, 1937.

5. Sefton, 3.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 103

influenced by the architecture of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Built in the 1970s, this building has had few alterations. Even though this building is less than 50 years old it is significant to the Brightwood neighborhood as an example of the continuous transformation of the community into an urban neighborhood. An excellent example of mid-century modernism, the building has gained significance based on its architecture.1

Endnotes:1. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Building Permit Database; Hazel Broadnax, Interview, October 26, 2006.

CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES

15. Fourth District Police Station

Resource Address:6001 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: CivilDate of Construction:Circa 1970Location:Square 2983Integrity:GoodStatus:Application completed but not submitted forthe National Register

The Fourth District Police Headquarters is a modern structure

16. Brightwood Elementary School

Resource Address:13th & Nicholson StreetsArchitect/Builder:Waddy B. Wood, ArchitectAlbert L. Harris, Municipal ArchitectBuilding Type: EducationalDate of Construction:1926Location:Square 2794, Lot 885Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

The Brightwood Elementary School, located at the corner of 13th and Nicholson Streets, was constructed in the colonial revival architecture popular during the early

Figure 57: Fourth District Police Headquarters Figure 58: Brightwood Elementary School

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

104 CHAPTER FIVE

17. Paul Public Charter School

Resource Address:8th & Oglethorpe StreetsArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: EducationalDate of Construction:1929-1930Location:Square 2985, Lot 814Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Built from 1929 through 1930, Paul Public Charter School is another example of colonial revival school architecture in Brightwood. The building has been used for various educational purposes including

Application, 24.2. Antoinette Lee. School Building

Survey: District of Columbia.3. “Portfolio for the Brightwood

Elementary School Modernization and Addition.”

20th century. At the building’s dedication in November 1926 the Brightwood School was considered the “last word in elementary school construction.”1 During an era of expandable school design in Washington, DC, in which sections of buildings were constructed in phases, the Brightwood School was one of the few to be built in its final form with a single building contract in one year. Prominent Washington architect Waddy B. Wood designed and supervised construction of the school. Wood is known for his eclectic styles that combined gothic details, such as steep gables, with classical elements and symmetrical massing.2 The building has most recently undergone an addition and renovation by Ehrenkrants, Eckstut and Kuhn Architects.3

Endnotes:1. Washington Heights Historic

District National Register

Figure 59: Paul Public Charter School

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 105

18. Agudath Achim Synagogue/St. John United Baptist Church

Resource Address:6343 13th StreetArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: ReligiousDate of Construction:Dedicated in 1958Location:Square 2944, Lot 0809Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

The art deco building currently known as St. John United Baptist Church has been the home to two very different congregations. Dedicated in 1958, the

the local public junior high school and high school. While the exterior of the building retains a high degree of integrity, the interior of the school has been modified several times based on its uses.

building originally functioned as the Agudath Achim Synagogue. Some architectural features from the building’s previous occupants, such as the outline of a Jewish Menorah, can still be seen today. The building’s architectural style and association with both Jewish and Christian congregations make the structure locally significant.1

Endnotes:1. “Through the Lens: Jeremy Goldberg’s Washington,” The Record: Publication of the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington, 27 (2005-2006); District of Columbia Office of Planning, Building Permit Database.

Figure 60: St. John United Baptist Church

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

106 CHAPTER FIVE

20. Joseph Abel Apartments

Resource Address:5741 Colorado Avenue & 5912 14th StreetArchitect/Builder:Joseph H. Abel, ArchitectBuilding Type: ResidentialDate of Construction:1931 (5741 Colorado Avenue)1940 (5912 14th Street)Location:Square 2797, Lot 0810 (5741 ColoradoAvenue)PAR 0087 0558 (5912 14th Street)Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

Joseph Abel, a prominent architect in Washington, DC, built two art deco

Avenue. The building, a four-square with prairie style influences, now functions as Emory Beacon of Light Community Development Corporation’s offices. The structure underwent an extensive renovation in 1999.1

Endnotes:1. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Building Permit Database.

19. House at Emory United Methodist Church (known as the Lighthouse)

Resource Address:6120 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:UnknownBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:UnknownLocation:Square 2940, Lot 0813Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

The residential building located directly north of Emory United Methodist Church is the only remaining example of the grand houses that once lined Georgia

Figure 61: House at Emory Church Figure 62: Joseph Abel Apartments

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 107

21. Shopping Center

Resource Address:6119-6127 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:George T. Santmyers, Architect (6119-6121)Edmond Dreyfuss, Architect (6123-6127)Harold Stoll, BuilderBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1940Location:Square 2982, Lot 104Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

The commercial structures between 6119 and 6127 Georgia Avenue were constructed in 1940 in the art deco style. The

apartment complexes in the Brightwood neighborhood. Both apartments are excellent examples of early 20th century garden-style apartment complexes. These apartments were built at a time when Washington, DC and Brightwood experienced large population increases.1 The apartments are pleasant brick structures with large picture windows.

Endnotes:1. “D.C. Vacancies in Apartments at Low Figure,” December 13, 1931. MLK Vertical File: Apartment Houses 1913-1939.

buildings were designed and built by two well-known Washington, DC architects. George T. Santmyers designed the Harold Stoll Store at 6119 – 6121 Georgia Avenue. Santmyers was one of Washington, DC’s most important architects in the 1920s, -30s and -40s. Edward Dreyfuss designed the Joseph P. Morgan Store at 6123 – 6127 Georgia Avenue. Dreyfuss was a local architect who also designed apartments in Georgetown and Longmeadow homes on Wisconsin Avenue.1 The buildings are in poor condition because of a lack of routine maintenance, coupled with inappropriate improvements.

Endnotes:1. “Dreyfuss View,” The Washington

Post, October 29, 1966.

Figure 63: Commercial Structure on Georgia Avenue

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

108 CHAPTER FIVE

23. Seven Seas Restaurant

Resource Address:5915 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Jesse G. Berrich, ArchitectBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1923Location:Square 2986, Lot 0862Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

Attached to the north face of the Bank of Brightwood building, the Seven Seas Restaurant is designed in the art deco style. The building is vacant and has been vandalized in recent years. While in need of stabilization and maintenance, this structure

designed by architect O. R. Scholz, who is regarded as one of the seven major architects of the art deco style in Washington, DC.1 The building is currently in poor condition.

Endnotes:1. National Register of Historic Places, “Arlington Forest Application.”

22. Shopping Center

Resource Address:Easy Buy Mattress5722 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:O.R. Scholz, ArchitectBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1938Location:PAR 008770515Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

Built in 1938, the commercial structure at 5722 Georgia Avenue is an excellent example of vernacular commercial art deco architecture. The structure was

Figure 64: Easy Buy Mattress Building Figure 65: Seven Seas Restaurant Building

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 109

24. Car Barn / Curtis Chevrolet

Resource Address:5929 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Samuel J. PrescottBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1909Location:Square 2986, Lot 0856Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

Constructed by the Brightwood Railway Company, this brick building with a metal roof replaced a similar structure destroyed by fire in 1895. It functioned as a repair and storage facility for streetcars until

contributes to the historic character of Brightwood. The front façade is adorned with Vitrolite tiles, a fairly durable glass material. Vitrolite was first produced by Libbey-Owens-Ford in 1916 and, along with other forms of structural glass, was widely used in the 1930s to modernize storefronts, service stations, movie theaters, and other commercial buildings.1 The tiles, set in aluminum framing, were likely installed in the 1930s when the glass was offered in a range of colors as well as finishes. This Vitrolite has, however, become cracked and broken in several locations. Conservation of the remaining material is strongly recommended as this structural glass is no longer produced domestically.2

Endnotes:1. Thomas C. Jester, Twentieth Century

Building Materials: History and Conservation

2. Ibid.

the early 20th century. This site was occupied by two car dealerships, first Hicks Chevrolet and then the current Curtis Chevrolet. Most importantly, however, through its association with both the streetcar line and the development of automobile culture, the car barn contributed to the evolution of transportation in Brightwood, as well as the District of Columbia as a whole.1

Endnotes:1. United States National Archives and Records Administration, District of Columbia Building Permits Collection, Washington, DC, Permit #3082; “Samuel J. Prescott & Co., “Classified Advertisement,” The Washington Post, June 12, 1912.

Figure 66: Car Barn at Curtis Chevrolet

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

110 CHAPTER FIVE

26. Shopping Center

Resource Address:5822-5828 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:G. A. Lewis, ArchitectC. E. Wire, BuilderBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:Circa 1927Location:Square 2937, Lots 0003-0004, 0030, 0801Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

The row of commercial brick buildings at 5822 to 5828 Georgia Avenue consists of small single-story retail establishments. Although their style is

use of the second floor is unknown. The block is of brick construction. The history of the building is largely unknown as no historical records or photographs could be located to identify alterations or change over time. However, the block has housed a dry cleaners since its construction in 1937, and retains significant art deco features including a streamlined design, horizontal and asymmetrical elements, large plate glass display windows, and a flat roof with a small ledge at the roofline.

Endnotes:1. United States National Archives and Records Administration, District of Columbia Building Permits Collection, Washington, DC, Permit #199025.

25. Shopping Center

Resource Address:Martin’s Dry Cleaner6129-6139 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:D. B. Johannes, ArchitectA. E. Pessagno & Co., BuilderBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1937Location:Square 35-37 2982, Lot 0136Integrity:FairStatus:Not Listed

This two-part commercial block is made up of a two-story structure with the first floor used for retail purposes. The

Figure 67: Martin’s Dry Cleaner’s BuildingFigure 68: Commercial Structures South of the Masonic Lodge

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 111

27. Posin’s Bakery and Delicatessen

Resource Address:5756 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:Edmond W. Dreyfuss, ArchitectTuckman & Rinis, BuilderBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1947Location:PAR 0087 0563Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

The former delicatessen is a one-story red-brick building with a concrete floor on steel joists. The building is approximately 15 feet wide and 45 feet deep. The bakery was

understated, the buildings’ front façades do contain some art deco elements. Although no major alterations have been made to the buildings, they have not been well maintained. Most require masonry and window repairs as well as repainting.

In 1913 the site was occupied by the A. Loeffler Company, a supplier of trucks to Brightwood and the surrounding area. The original owner of the present buildings was J. C. Beard, vice-president of the Bank of Brightwood in the 1920s. Beard constructed the commercial buildings in response to the increase in population and development in Brightwood during the early 20th century. From the 1930s to the 1950s, the units at 5824 to 5828 Georgia Avenue also served as the home for American Legion Fort Stevens Post, Number 32.

located in the rear of the store. Commercial windows span the front of the building with a simple, deep white cornice for signage running over them. The exterior brick has been well maintained, as has the white cornice over the front. Both are in good condition. Windows have been infilled with brick, but for the most part, the exterior integrity is excellent. The integrity of the interior could not be assessed.

Abraham Posin, who immigrated from Russia in 1907, opened his first store in Foggy Bottom in 1917. Subsequently, Posin had a kosher delicatessen at the Old Center Market on Pennsylvania Avenue which he later moved to the Arcade at 14th and Park Streets. However, his goal of opening a bakery was realized when he opened Posin’s Bakery and Delicatessen in Brightwood in April of 1947.1 Posin had three sons, Hyman, Max, and Ben. Hyman and Max worked in

Figure 69: Posin’s Bakery & Delicatessen

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

112 CHAPTER FIVE

Endnotes:1. Eugene L. Meyer, “Deli-Bakery is a Roll-Model,” The Washington Post, September 25, 1987.2. Eugene L. Meyer, “Saving Memories of a Deli That Was Family,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2006.3. “Food Market Poll—Dinners to Start the Year Right,” The Washington Post, December 28, 2006.4. “Edmund Dreyfuss Obituary,” The Washington Post, July 11, 1982.

since Mr. Posin was a little boy and their market was in the old arcade on Fourteenth Street.”3

The store building was designed by prominent architect Edmund W. Dreyfuss. He graduated with a degree in architecture from George Washington University in 1935 and started his architectural firm in 1938.4 Prior to Posin’s, he designed the Joseph P. Morgan store at 6121-6127 Georgia Avenue in Brightwood. Mr. Dreyfuss’ career quickly grew to include the design of fine office buildings in downtown Washington, DC, including the Presidential Building on Pennsylvania Avenue and the Executive Building at 15th and L Streets. His other buildings projects include over 25,000 apartment units, mid-income and high-income residential homes, and the Maple Avenue Shopping Center in Vienna, Virginia.

the store with their father and then managed it after his death in 1957.2 Max’s son, Randy, also worked at Posin’s. However, after Max’s death in 1995, the restaurant faced financial pressures and closed in February of 1998.

Posin’s Bakery and Delicatessen is significant from two perspectives. It yields information important to the history and character of Brightwood, and its construction embodies the characteristics of its designer, prominent area architect Edmund W. Dreyfuss. For over 50 years, residents frequented the store to purchase kosher products, baked goods, and dry ice. Edith Price, who lived on Oglethorpe Street, was quoted in 1956 as saying “Our favorite desert? Coconut cake from Posin’s…you can’t beat it! They’ve made my daughter’s birthday cakes ever since she was a little girl, and now she’s old enough to teach school...all their cakes are wonderful. I’ve dealt with them

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 113

Snead family, and while no longer used as a residence, it has continued to be used as a funeral home. The two-story, brick Georgian style building was designed by noted architect George T. Santmyers, who designed many single- and multiple-family dwellings and commercial buildings throughout the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Overall Snead’s Funeral Home has been well maintained with minimal alterations since it was built in 1938.1

Endnotes:1. United States National Archives and Records Administration, District of Columbia Building Permits Collection, Washington, DC, Permit #210890.

28. Snead’s Funeral Home/Huntemann Funeral Home

Resource Address:5732 Georgia AvenueArchitect/Builder:George T. Santmyers, ArchitectBuilding Type: CommercialDate of Construction:1938Location:Square 2935, Lot 0808Integrity:GoodStatus:Not Listed

For over 40 years, the Wilson K. Huntemann Funeral Home provided funeral services for many Brightwood residents and their families. It was later sold to the

Figure 70: Snead’s Funeral Home

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

114 CHAPTER FIVE

time encouraging investment and further commercial activity.3

The third important point underlying the Main Street Approach is design. This means getting a commercial corridor into top physical condition which will enable the corridor to capitalize on its best assets: historic buildings and pedestrian-oriented streets. Design work can include enhancing the visual image through attractive window displays, parking areas, building improvements, street furniture, signage, sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping. Design also includes encouraging, and eventually requiring, good maintenance practices. As the physical appearance of downtown is improved through the appropriate rehabilitation of historic buildings, more investment will take place.4

The final underlying point of

the Trust identified five components of a successful downtown revitalization: strong public-private partnerships, a full-time program manager, commitment to good design, quality promotional programs, and a coordinated, incremental process. Using these components, the Trust’s methodology combines historic preservation with economic development for the benefit of economic revitalization.1

The National Trust stresses four main points in its Main Street Approach to revitalizing declining downtown commercial areas. First, the effort must show organization. All the stakeholders should be working toward the same goals, while the appropriate human and financial resources are assembled. This primarily volunteer program is governed by a board along with a set of standing committees. The board employs a paid director to manage and

coordinate the volunteers. This structure not only assigns responsibilities and divides the workload but also builds consensus among the stakeholders.2

Second, the Main Street Approach stresses the importance of promotion in projecting a positive image of the commercial area. This positive image is fostered through advertising, retail promotional events, special activities, and marketing campaigns carried out by local volunteers. These initiatives help to improve both consumer and investor confidence in the area while at the same

the Main Street Approach is economic restructuring to strengthen a community’s existing economic assets while expanding and diversifying its economic base. Economic restructuring will help to bring the kinds of businesses that consumers want to a downtown shopping district. It will also spur the conversion of un- or under-used commercial space into economically productive property thus helping to boost the profitability of the area as a whole.5

THE FUTURE: TOOLS FOR PRESERVATION

After thoroughly researching the preservation tools available to the Brightwood community, the studio team chose those that it determined best met the existing needs and conditions in the community. They include the Main Street Program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, historic designation and landmarking, overlay zoning, the federal Transportation Enhancements Program, and teacher mini-grants.

MAIN STREET PROGRAM

The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program is one way to revitalize the Georgia Avenue corridor within the Brightwood neighborhood. The Main Street program uses a grassroots

approach that consists of four points supported by eight guiding principles.

The Four Points

In 1977 the National Trust for Historic Preservation initiated the Main Street Project in response to continuing threats to traditional commercial architecture in economically-declining downtowns across the country. The project’s objective was to develop a comprehensive revitalization strategy to save historic commercial buildings. In formulating this strategy,

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 115

common goals of Main Street’s revitalization. Each sector has important functions to perform and must understand the strengths and limitations of the other.

!" Successful downtown revitalizations identify and capitalize on existing assets. These assets are what make towns and cities unique. These assets include qualities such as distinctive historic structures, a pleasing human scale, and walkability. These serve as the foundation for the rest of the revitalization program.

!" Downtown partners should emphasize quality in every aspect of the revitalization program. Quality of programs should be accentuated rather than quantity.

!" Change is another guiding principle. While often skeptic at first, public support will change as the Main

The Eight Principles

The National Trust’s Main Street Approach has repeatedly shown that the four points are integral to success. This success, in turn, is guided by eight principles that set the Main Street Approach apart from other redevelopment strategies. To be successful, a Main Street revitalization effort must encompass these eight principles as well:

!" The effort must be comprehensive. No single focus—public improvements, business recruitment, or promotional events—can revitalize downtown. A comprehensive approach that includes activity in each of the Four Points is essential.

!" The Main Street Approach calls for incremental changes. Basic, simple activities at the outset demonstrate that something is happening in the commercial district of town. Later,

more complex problems and projects can be accomplished. By adopting a series of incremental changes, downtown partners can effect lasting improvements in the Main Street area.

!" Main Street revitalization is a self-help project. Downtown residents, businesses, and property owners must invest time and money to save downtown, the heart of their community.

!" The public and private sectors must form a partnership to achieve the

Street program grows and consistently meets its goals.

!" In order to succeed, the Main Street projects must be implemented so that they can show visible results. Changes are a reminder that revitalization is underway. Small projects will lead to larger ones as the program matures. This will create higher levels of confidence leading to greater levels of participation.6

neighborhood business districts.”7 Administered through the Washington DC Office of Planning and Economic Development’s reSTORE DC initiative, commercial districts selected for this program receive five years of technical and financial assistance to recruit new businesses and expand current businesses while protecting and utilizing historic resources.8

Now one of 10 successful DC Main Street Programs, 14th Street Heights is enjoying economic prosperity while preserving its historic built environment.

Case Study

Brightwood and 14th Street Heights are two communities with much in common. They share similar concerns and both are located in Ward 4 of Washington, DC. Both feature Wardman-style rowhouses and are characterized as middle-class, African American communities, although they are diversifying as the immigrant population continues to grow and the white population returns to the urban areas. Like Brightwood, 14th Street Heights was once a farming community that grew into a streetcar suburb in the early 20th century but faced decline in the second half of that century.

In 2002, the DC Main Streets program, based on the proven National Trust for Historic Preservation model, was created to establish and implement “comprehensive revitalization initiatives in DC’s traditional

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

116 CHAPTER FIVE

from alteration, neglect, and demolition. While nomination to the National Register of Historic Places is an honor for any historic site, the impact of the designation’s protection is limited to government actions. Local designation protects sites from private actions as well as governmental actions by requiring review and public participation when changes are initiated at a historic site. The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in the DC Office of Planning oversees the designation of historic sites in the area, and enforces the restrictions placed on landmarked sites. The Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 combined with the city’s Historic Preservation Regulations (District of Columbia Municipal Regulations Title 10A), defines the governing structure, procedures, regulations, and administrative procedures for historic designations in the city. Together they provide protection, enhancement, and

in Brightwood with the façade improvement program sponsored by the Emory Beacon of Light, Inc. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Main Street Program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation will provide the framework and guidance necessary to a successful revitalization.

HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKING

Historic designations provide official recognition of significant cultural and historical sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts. The National Historic Landmark is the highest level of designation awarded by the Secretary of the Interior. These landmarks reflect exceptional value or quality in interpreting the heritage of the United States.10 There are currently less than 2,500 National Historic Landmark designations. A second national level

designation is placement on the National Register of Historic Places, which is the official national list of cultural resources worthy of historic preservation. This register contains over 80,000 historic designations and is managed by the National Park Service. National level historic designation can be an effective tool for recognizing historic sites, achieving economic benefits, and protecting sites from federal government actions.

At the local level, historic designations are an important and effective tool in protecting historically significant sites

perpetuation of historic landmarks and districts that represent distinctive elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history.11 The DC Inventory of Historic Sites currently protects over 500 historic landmarks and over 30 historic districts.

In order to qualify for Historic Landmark or District designation, the resource must meet several standards to be considered significant by the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). The first criterion for designation is that the property

With the commercial boundaries of 14th Street from Webster Street to Decatur Street, this area is a heavily traveled route, not unlike Georgia Avenue. Although 14th Street is a transportation hub similar to Georgia Avenue, streetscape improvements have created a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, and the retail stores and restaurants are flourishing as neighborhood residents and commuters shop and dine along the commercial corridor. Signage and façade improvements are just two of Brightwood’s objectives that have already been implemented along 14th Street thanks to the Main Street Program.9 Additional information regarding the Main Streets Program can be found on the National Trust Main Street Center website.

Implications for Brightwood

The Georgia Avenue corridor

through Brightwood will benefit in numerous ways from being part of the Main Street Program sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. First, there are already Main Street programs operating within Washington, DC, including one further north on Georgia Avenue. This means that the city has experience with the program thus cutting the amount of time that would be required to implement a new program. Second, the Main Street Program is a grass roots effort that requires a buy-in from the stakeholders in the targeted neighborhood. This has already begun along Georgia Avenue

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 117

ensure that new development will enhance the character and scale of a neighborhood.15 Furthermore, local designations can foster community pride and protect selected areas from unmanaged change.16 Finally, historic designations can help educate the residents and visitors about the history of Brightwood and its contributions to the history of Washington, DC.17

From a legislative perspective, the goal of the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 in establishing historic districts in Washington, DC is to retain and enhance the properties that contribute to the character of the historic district and to encourage their adaptation for current use, to ensure that alterations of the structures are compatible with the character of the historic district, and to guarantee that new construction and subdivision lots are compatible with the

must be associated with one of the following: • It is the site of a significant event; • It exemplifies significant social, historical, or physical heritage; • It exemplifies distinguishing characteristics of architecture; • It exemplifies the work of a master artist, architect, or craftsman; • It contains information about historic or prehistoric events; • In the case of a natural form or setting, it reflects significant patterns of settlement or use of the landscape.12

The second criterion is that the landmark “must possess sufficient integrity” to demonstrate the significant connections to the history of Washington, DC.13 The third criterion is that the site must be old enough to allow for a professional evaluation of the site as historic, which generally means the site

must be at least 50 years old.14 If a site meets these standards it may be eligible for the strong protections under the DC Landmark laws.

Through the designation of historic landmarks in Brightwood, the community can protect its significant sites from developers and occupants who may not be aware of Brightwood’s historic character. Historic districts can provide a way to preserve the historic character of a neighborhood, to improve the quality of life for residents in the neighborhood, and to

historic district.18

Landmark designation can benefit Brightwood by providing strong protection of historic sites that are important to the community. Since the designation and review processes allow for public input, the Brightwood community would have an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes or alterations to the sites and thereby help mitigate the threat of growth and new construction inconsistent with the current style and scale of the area. Furthermore, protecting these sites by landmark

designation could increase community pride based on the neighborhood’s rich history. The markers given to designated sites could also help visitors and residents alike navigate Brightwood’s history.

There may also be economic benefits to sites placed on the National Register of Historic Places. For example, income-producing properties in the National Register may be eligible for federal tax credits, typically up to 20%. Owners of properties on the National Register of Historic Places may also be eligible for tax benefits if they donate a historic preservation easement to a charitable organization. There is also another level of protection for nationally designated properties. Changes to properties on the National Register may be subject to a federal government review process, referred to as the Section 106 review process, which is designed to ensure that historic properties

are appropriately considered during federal project planning and execution.

During the nomination process for local landmark designations in Washington, DC, a site is also considered for nomination to the National Register. Local landmark buildings may also qualify for special exemptions. If a building is designated a DC historic landmark and is rehabilitated, it could qualify for “special consideration under the DC Construction Code” and may waive certain zoning requirements including off-street parking and loading.19

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

118 CHAPTER FIVE

established as a local historic district over 20 years ago. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987. Cleveland Park is similar to Brightwood as it represents an urban community that developed as a streetcar suburb along a major transportation route. Its suburban development began in 1894 on land previously occupied by estates. The neighborhood includes a mix of residential and commercial buildings constructed between 1894 and 1930. Like Brightwood, these include a Park ‘n Shop and an art deco theater. Cleveland Park has a significant inventory of buildings designed by prominent architects such as Mihran Mesrobian and Joseph Abel.

The community established the Cleveland Park Historical Society, a non-profit community organization. The society has implemented a comprehensive website to help educate people about the history

application form, along with photographs, maps, and a bibliography. Applications can be completed with the assistance of a preservation professional or a member of the HPO staff.23 Once the HPO receives the completed application and filing fee, a public hearing is scheduled for the deliberation. Prior to the hearing, the HPO and applicant must give 30 days notice in the newspaper so all interested parties can attend the meeting. During this time, no building permits may be issued for the property.24 At the hearing, the HPO staff makes its recommendations on designation, and the general public can share its views. After deliberation, the HPRB makes its decision about the designation.25 National Register designation may be considered at the same time.26

Case Study

Local historic districts are one of the

oldest and strongest forms of protection for historic properties in the United States.27 The historic district movement began in Charleston, South Carolina in 1931 when the local government created an ordinance to manage changes to exterior building features. Since then, more than 2,300 local historic districts have been created in the United States. Over 30 historic districts have been created in Washington, DC.

One example of an effective local historic district is the Cleveland Park Historic District in northwest Washington, DC,

and significance of Cleveland Park, as well as providing updates on permitting guidelines for historic districts. The society also has a strong outreach program that prepares conservation easement seminars for residents. Currently it is planning to work with other historic districts to share ideas and concerns regarding historic preservation.28

Implications for Brightwood

Based on Brightwood’s resources and project goals, it is recommended that the community pursue both local and

The impact of historic landmarks and districts is affected by a wide range of factors, including location, community involvement, and economic conditions. Residents often worry that historic landmark or district designation may affect their property values. Property values could increase because historic designation may provide the neighborhood with its own, unique identity that attracts buyers. They might also increase because buyers face less of an investment risk from the demolition of neighboring structures and their replacement with new construction inappropriate to the character of the neighborhood.20 However some long-term historic districts in Washington, DC have not seen an increase in property values or taxes.21 There is therefore no “one-size fits all” solution with historic preservation.

There are a number of people and groups who can sponsor a property for

historic landmark or district designation. Sponsors may include property owners, the HPRB, a government agency, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, or any organization that considers historic preservation to be one if its missions.22 Multiple groups can sponsor a nomination.

Once a property is identified as a potential landmark, a sponsor must initiate the nomination process. Research and documentation of the property’s architecturally and historically significant characteristics are compiled into a standard

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 119

Place on the north, and Quackenbos Street on the south. This neighborhood is significant in the urban development of the city following World War II. The integrity of this neighborhood is good with some alterations to the exteriors of the houses.

Brightwood Commercial District The commercial area along Georgia Avenue would extend from Kennedy Street on the south to Rittenhouse Street on the north. This area is rich in architecture and local history with a high concentration of resources. (See page 66.) Because many of the buildings have not been well maintained and would require restoration to meet National Register standards their integrity can only be considered fair. By first becoming a local historic district, the resources can be protected. Once the properties have been restored, they maybe eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

national designation for historic landmarks and districts. Local landmark designation and nomination for the National Register of Historic Places is recommended for sites listed in the Inventory section of this document as landmark resources. (See page 66 for landmark list.) These sites meet the requirements for significance, have historic integrity, and are old enough to be evaluated on their historic merits.

It is also recommended that the community pursue historic district designations for two residential areas and one commercial area.

Brightwood Park: The Brightwood Park residential district would be bounded by Madison Street and Shepherd Road on the north, Georgia Avenue on the west, 4th Street on the east, and Jefferson Street on the south. This

neighborhood is significant in the urban development of the city as it changed from an agricultural community to an urban one. It is also representative of the housing boom that occurred along major transportation routes at the turn of the century. The integrity of the residential neighborhood is good with minimal alterations to the original exterior fabric of the homes.

Fort Stevens Ridge: The Fort Stevens Ridge historic district would be bounded by 5th Street on the east, 9th Street on the west, Tewkesbury

Historic landmark designation at the local level can be a good preservation tool for Brightwood because of the strong protection it provides, the allowance for public participation, and the chance to manage neighborhood growth in areas with historic character. While National Register nominations are an honor for any site, the real protections provided by the regulations of a local landmark designation are proven throughout the city and can help Brightwood save its numerous historic resources for generations to come.

OVERLAY ZONING

An overlay zone is a tool that addresses community-specific issues while protecting the area’s historic character. The custom-designed overlay zone, outlining requirements applicable to a specific area, is superimposed over existing zoning. The District of Columbia has established a number of overlay zones that conform to its Comprehensive Plan.29

An overlay zone along Georgia Avenue in Brightwood could extend from Aspen Street to the north and Kennedy Street to the south, the north-south axis of the team’s study area. The proposed overlay would provide common design standards, such as zero setbacks from the street, parking, and pedestrian-friendly design criteria like improved crosswalks and pedestrian activated systems. The proposed overlay zone could be

divided into districts such as one for housing, commerce, and one for restaurants/fine dining. Incentives foster these concentrated types of development.

Goals of an overlay zone along the Georgia Avenue corridor would be to encourage the reuse of existing buildings and implement design guidelines for new and rehabilitated buildings. This tool could also support mixed-use development such as the installation of affordable residential units above street-level businesses. Once community organizations and residents have

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

120 CHAPTER FIVE

bulk restrictions could help shield the area from construction that does not conform to the existing built environment. An overlay zone would be a helpful tool for Brightwood citizens in their efforts to preserve, protect, and enhance their community.

TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS PROGRAM

Formed in 1991, the Federal Transportation Enhancements (TE) program was designed “to encourage transportation planning and projects that would not only provide transportation systems, but also improve and revitalize communities.”32 Today, the program continues to guide and fund transportation projects that are not limited to road construction and repair, but foster a diverse range of activities designed to promote economic and social welfare. To qualify for the TE program a project must

the existing urban fabric. First, it allows new construction that preserves an existing, pre-1958 façade to build a larger structure than would normally be allowed if the original building were completely destroyed. Similar types of regulations may fit well into the proposed overlay zone in Brightwood.

Implications for Brightwood

An overlay zone along Georgia Avenue within the study area could be designed to help address problems along Georgia Avenue and to respond to the wishes of the residents who want places where they can live, shop, and dine. Other issues that could be addressed through an overlay are the appearance of Georgia Avenue and the threat to pedestrian safety caused by traffic congestion. An overlay could provide common design standards to ensure attractive development, standard building setbacks

from the street, parking requirements, and pedestrian activated systems like crossing lights.

An overlay could also help provide limited protection for the community’s historic resources and overall character. By offering developers incentives for preserving historic façades, many of Brightwood’s older buildings could be protected from total demolition. An overlay could also encourage the reuse of existing buildings and implement design guidelines for new and rehabilitated structures. Creating additional height and

meet three basic criteria: 1) Provide some degree of public access,

including view from a public right-of-way

2) Relate in some general way to surface (non-aerial) transportation

3) Meet the requirements of at least one of the 12 designated TE activities. 33 (See Figure 71 on page 142.)

The TE program is not a grant. Rather, it is a federal-aid reimbursement program designed to repay the sponsor of an eligible project following its completion. As

contacted the District of Columbia Office of Planning to request this type of zoning, the Office of Planning will request that the Zoning Commission establish and map a new overlay zone in the Brightwood area.30

Case Study

The overlay proposed for Brightwood could be modeled on the existing H Street NE Neighborhood Commercial Overlay, established in 2005. Although this particular overlay is relatively new and has had limited time to prove its effectiveness, it contains many elements that could be revised to fit the specific needs of Brightwood’s Georgia Avenue. Like all other overlay zones in the District, the H Street overlay was not designed to specifically address historic preservation issues; however, it has incorporated preservation-friendly policies that provide protection to community

character.31

The H Street overlay provides common design standards, such as zero setbacks from the street, rear parking, and pedestrian friendly design. These regulations are intended to preserve the retail character of the strip while also fostering safety.

The H Street overlay is divided into three sections: a housing sub-district, a retail sub-district, and an arts sub-district. The H Street overlay has further provisions to promote historic preservation and to protect

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 121

required for all District legislature.”37

The TE program has been highly successful within Washington, DC, with 75 projects already completed or currently underway.38 The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) has not set a minimum or maximum limit on the federal award that any one TE project may receive. This decision means that both large and small projects are eligible to benefit. Moreover, the typical non-federal match required by DDOT ranges from 0% to 10% of the total project cost, meaning that some TE projects are fully reimbursed.39 This requirement falls below the national average of 20%, and is significantly less than the 50% to 60% match required by the adjacent state of Maryland.40 Likewise, DDOT will consider counting “in kind” contributions toward a project’s non-federal match. Examples include volunteer labor, donations of land

such, the sponsor is contractually obligated to fund the project and complete all work prior to being reimbursed. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers TE funds to each state’s Department of Transportation (DOT). The state DOT in turn agrees to reimburse the sponsor for a designated portion of the project’s cost. This sum is known as the federal award. The sponsor pays the balance, known as the non-federal match.34

Approximately $2 million in funding is available for TE projects throughout Washington, DC for fiscal year 2007.35 Using past FHWA allocations as an indicator, upcoming years are likely to maintain this funding level.36 Given the unique arrangement of Washington, DC politics, only federal and local agencies may apply to become project sponsors, although there is nothing preventing them from collaborating

with non-governmental organizations. If the Brightwood Community Association, or any similar group, wishes a TE project to take place, it must solicit the support of an eligible sponsor. Possible sponsors include the DC Office of Planning, DC Department of Parks and Recreation, DC Historic Preservation Office, Federal Highway Administration, and the National Park Service. It is also important to understand that, “Projects that use public funds or are located on public land require City Council approval as part of the standard budget approval process, and are sent to Congress for a review period which is

and construction materials, and charitable contributions.41 The sponsor may also fund the entire non-federal match through outside grants, awards, and endowments.

Case Study

When US Route 1 passes in front of the state capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, it becomes Gervais Street. In 1984 National Geographic magazine published an article on the blight plaguing downtown Columbia, particularly Gervais Street. “At the time Gervais Street was a

rundown commercial district with vacant storefronts, abandoned buildings and few pedestrian amenities.”42 The condition was strikingly similar to that of Georgia Avenue today. Local officials developed a plan to revitalize the streetscape, and in 1995 received a TE award. These TE funds “paid for the construction of a new median, landscaping, new sidewalks, burial of utility lines, installation of street furniture and period lighting,” and “helped transform the transportation corridor through Columbia into a pedestrian-friendly facility that enhances the travel experience for all.”43

A federal TE award of $4,244,480 greatly deferred the total project cost of $5,305,600, leaving the city to pay $1,061,120. The Gervais streetscape improvement has spurred additional private and public investment, including new commercial and residential development, a

new hotel, rehabilitation of a car dealership into a restaurant, residences, and office space, as well as a new convention center, children’s museum, and sports arena. Columbia’s downtown is more attractive and inviting, and the area received an estimated $200 million in investments following the competition of the TE project.44 While Brightwood will likely opt for a smaller-scale redevelopment plan that highlights the restoration and preservation of its historic building fabric, the Gervais streetscape case study illustrates the effectiveness of the TE program as a tool for encouraging

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

122 CHAPTER FIVE

history and their own heritage, students often do not become involved in the affairs of their local communities. The community, however, can act as a classroom where historic architecture, cemeteries, library resources, and more serve in lieu of textbooks.

One way to achieve this goal is to provide mini-grants for local classroom teachers to write lesson plans and teaching activities that will encourage students to become more involved in their communities. The grants need not be large, and their requirements should be few. In size the grants need not be larger than $100. Possible community sources could include the Brightwood Community Association, the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, parent/teacher groups, and other civic organizations. Requirements might include a walking tour to one of the historic sites/landmarks in Brightwood, research by

fountains. These additions would serve to encourage community residents to interact favorably with one another in a designated social space. This arrangement should in turn foster a sense of place and community stewardship. Installing these improvements in Emery Park should foster the site’s natural role as a meeting place and focal point for the neighborhood.

4) Façade improvements and historic site acquisition. Many of the businesses along Georgia Avenue boast intact historic façades that are in need of repair or are covered by modern construction. A TE project could be utilized to restore these exteriors. Likewise, vacant or deteriorated historic properties, such as the Seven Seas Restaurant, could be acquired and preserved.

All of these activities would help achieve what the residents of Brightwood desire most: a vibrant, thriving community that meets the needs of neighborhood residents and attracts outside visitors to shop, eat, and share the neighborhood’s rich history.

TEACHER MINI-GRANTS

Where will the next generation of local history buffs and preservationists come from? Without them, how will Brightwood maintain its identity and sense of place? Without knowledge of and appreciation for

students into Brightwood’s history, oral history interviews with long-time residents about what Brightwood was like “back in the day,” or other activities that relate directly to Brightwood. There is a precedent for the teaching of local history in Brightwood’s schools through the Brightwood History Reader that is used in some of Brightwood’s schools. With the awarding of these new grants, teachers could build on this series with new activities that encourage a hands-on approach to Brightwood’s history. Activities, lesson plans, and units of study could focus on architecture, archaeology, cemeteries,

economic development and social advocacy. Implementing a TE project along Georgia Avenue should encourage similar gains within the Brightwood community.

Implications for Brightwood

The TE program could be utilized to provide a source of funds for a variety of beneficial activities along Georgia Avenue within the Brightwood Community. These include:

1) Installation of interpretive signage. Cultural Tourism DC has already received funds from the TE funding to install interpretive signage on a variety of historical themes related to the development of Georgia Avenue and Brightwood. These efforts may be expanded.

2) Bicycle and walking trail. A trail may be developed along Georgia

Avenue that links historical sites and signage. The trail may take the form of a brick inlaid sidewalk, similar to the Freedom Trail in Boston, Massachusetts. When possible this trail should connect with the Fort Circle Parks trails being developed by the National Park Service.

3) Public improvements. Transportation Enhancements could also fund the installation of public improvements such as trees, benches, steps, period lighting, gardens, flowerbeds, picnic tables, trash receptacles, plazas, and

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 123

Historical Societies, students throughout that state are assisting local historical societies in documenting, archiving, and cataloging local history materials.46 The prospects for increased student learning in projects such as these are vast.

Implications for Brightwood

Teacher mini-grants provide an inexpensive way to increase a community’s knowledge about and appreciation for its past. The Brightwood community could use these mini-grants as a way of chronicling its past through oral and written histories, of helping young people to understand the need for historic preservation, and of making young people more aware of the need to participate in the community organizations that play such an important role in the Brightwood Community.

documents, folkways, objects and artifacts, community and family history, photographs and portraits, historic sites, museums, and the urban landscape. This approach would give students an understanding of the concepts and principles of history, enrich their appreciation for the achievements of people from diverse groups, nourish a sense of continuity with the historical experience, encourage them to consider historical experiences when planning for the future, and foster stewardship toward the legacies of their local heritage.45

Case Studies

Service learning in heritage education is already being used in different parts of the country to great effect. Montana high school students, in a joint project with the Library of Congress, are involved in collecting oral histories related to the state’s past.

In Louisiana with help from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, students of all ages are involved in heritage education service learning projects: one high school class created a website on the role of Louisiana’s African Americans in the Civil War, elementary students are producing an original education video that teachers can use demonstrating hand-on history activities, and a middle school class is writing, editing, and printing a brochure for a self-guided walking tour of their town’s downtown historic core. With the assistance of the Federation of North Carolina

Conclusion

From its agricultural beginnings to its pivotal role in the Civil War, from the long-gone mansions of yesteryear to one of America’s first strip malls, Brightwood has been a community which embraces change and serves as the home of reformers and activists. In recent years, blight has claimed an important component of the neighborhood, Georgia Avenue. While the surrounding residential areas have remained relatively tranquil, Brightwood’s prime commercial corridor has now fallen

prey to neglect. Traffic, crime, and urban decay have taken a toll on this once thriving business district. Citizens of Brightwood desire to improve the economic and physical conditions of Georgia Avenue, but they do not want to jeopardize their historic resources or lose touch with their heritage. Furthermore, they want to create an environment in which the sense of place is evident to both residents and visitors.

The University of Maryland’s 2006 historic preservation studio team studied the issues facing Brightwood by researching its past, inventorying and assessing its historic structures, and surveying community residents. This work reveals that Brightwood has many resources worth preserving, and the people of Brightwood have a longstanding history of managing change. Both long-term and new residents view the neighborhood’s residential areas as desirable while they find

the commercial corridor in sore need of improvements.

Because Brightwood is a community that appreciates its heritage and takes great pride in Fort Stevens, Battleground National Cemetery, the Roman Catholic Church of the Nativity, Emory United Methodist Church, and its many other historic sites, historic preservation can be used to secure the economic growth and physical improvements residents desire. In this report, the studio team has recommended and reviewed the following historic preservation

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

124 CHAPTER FIVE

Protection Act of 1978(DC Law 2- 144, as amended).”19. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, “Protections and Benefits Afforded to Historic Property.”20. Los Angeles Conservancy, “Top Ten Myths about Historic Preservation,” by Ken Bernstein.21. DC Preservation League, Frequently Asked Questions, “Will the value of my property increase if it becomes part of an historic district? How about my taxes?”22. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Procedures, “Historic Designation and Review Process.”23. Ibid.24. Ibid.25. Ibid.

District.”6. Ibid.7. District of Columbia, reStore DC: A Commercial Revitalization Center, “DC Main Streets.”8. Ibid.9. Ibid.; “14th Street Heights Main Street Initiative (Ward 4).”10. National Park Service, “National Historic Landmarks Program.”11. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Law and Regulations, “Historic Preservation Regulations (10 DCMR Title 10A).”12. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Procedures, “Historic Designation and Review Process.”13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.15. DC Preservation League, Frequently Asked Questions, “What is an historic district?”16. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, “Protections and Benefits Afforded to Historic Property.”17. Ibid.18. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Historic Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Law and Regulations, “Historic Landmark and Historic District

26. Ibid.27. National Park Service, Working on the Past in Local Historic Districts, “People Protecting Community Resources.”28. Cleveland Park Historical Society online.29. Ibid.30. District of Columbia Office of Zoning, Zoning the Nation’s Capital, “Summary of Overlay Districts.”31. District of Columbia Office of Zoning, “Zoning Commission for

tools:!" National Trust for Historic

Preservation Main Street Program

!" Historic District and Landmark Designation

!" Overlay Zoning!" Federal Transportation

Enhancements Program!" Teacher Mini-Grants

By utilizing these historic preservation tools, the Brightwood Community Association, Beacon of Light, Inc. and the city of Washington, DC can bring about the desired changes on Georgia Avenue while enabling the residential areas to retain the comfortable, peaceful quality that makes Brightwood an ideal home to so many residents.

Endnotes:

1. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Revitalizing Downtown: The Professional’s Guide to the Main Street Approach.2. National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Main Street: Revitalizing Your Commercial District.”3. Ibid.4. Richard Wagner, Guiding Design of Main Street: Buildings.”5. National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Main Street: Revitalizing Your Commercial

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

CHAPTER FIVE 125

41. Ibid.42. Ibid.43. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, Enhancing America’s Communities A Guide to Transportation Enhancements, 29.44. Ibid.45. Ibid.46. Kathleen Hunter, “Heritage Education in the Social Studies.”47. National Park Service, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Focus on 2000: A Heritage Education Perspective.”

the District of Columbia Notice of Public Hearing.”32. Steve Calcott, “Question from UM Studio.” Email to Anita Hairston. November 17, 2006.33. Allison Bar, Destination Preservation: Putting TEA-21 to Work for Historic Preservation, 1.34. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, “Enhancing America’s Communities: A Guide to Transportation Enhancements,” 2-3.35. Ibid., 5.36. District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning and Research, “Transportation Enhancement Funding Projects.”37. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse,

Transportation Enhancements: Summary of Nationwide Spending as of FY2005.38. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, State TE Program Profile, “District of Columbia.”39. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, “TE Project Examples.”40. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, State TE Program Profile, “District of Columbia.”

APPE

NDIC

ESAD

DITION

AL INF

ORMA

TION

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

128 A: MAP CHRONOLOGY1861 Boschke Topographical Map

This map indicates the presence of a small community growing around the crossroads of the 7th Street Turnpike, Milkhouse Ford Road, and Piney Branch Road. Emery [sic] Chapel is indicated north of the crossroads, and a tollgate is located just north of the chapel. Several prominent Washingtonians had estates in the area including Matthew Gault Emery and Alexander “Boss” Shepherd.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

A: MAP CHRONOLOGY 1291881 Carpenter Map

By 1881 the crossroads had been designated as Brightwood. The settlement grew to include two schools located to the west of 7th Street Road, formerly 7th Street Turnpike, and many small lots surrounding the crossroads. Two roads were added to the area by 1881. The Piney Branch Road spur parallels the 7th Street Road. It was constructed to allow residents to bypass the tollgate on the turnpike. Military Road was also added running west from 7th Street Road.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

130 A: MAP CHRONOLOGY1887 Hopkins Real Estate Map

This first real estate map of the area labels the Brightwood Post Office. The crossroads emerged as the center of a small rural village. Seventh Street Road had been renamed Brightwood Avenue, indicating the route’s growing prominence. Shepherd Road took the place of Milkhouse Ford Road east of Brightwood Avenue. The planned development of Petworth had been platted to the south of Brightwood along Brightwood Avenue.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

A: MAP CHRONOLOGY 1311892 Hopkins Real Estate Map

By 1892 development had rapidly progressed in Brightwood. While many parcels are shown divided into smaller lots, some larger estates remained intact. An additional school had been built on Brightwood Avenue, still labeled as 7th Street Road on this map, and several churches were also constructed. The Brightwood Park subdivision had been laid out to the south of Matthew Gault Emery’s estate. Piney Branch Road south of the crossroads was renamed 14th Street. Milkhouse Ford Road had become Rock Creek Ford Road.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

132 A: MAP CHRONOLOGY1903 Baist Real Estate Map

The 1903 Baist Map illustrates continuing development with several subdivisions platted. The first Church of the Nativity had been constructed. Milkhouse Ford Road is renamed Rock Creek Ford Road west of Brightwood Avenue, named as both 7th Street Road and Brightwood Avenue. Washington, DC streets, drawn in dotted lines, connect with new Brightwood thoroughfares. The car barn used to service the streetcar line in Brightwood is located to the east of Brightwood Avenue.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

A: MAP CHRONOLOGY 1331913 Baist Real Estate Map

Ten years later, this second Baist Map shows that as development of the Brightwood community continued, a greater number of parcels were sold to multiple owners, and streets were renamed and realigned to conform to the city grid. Brightwood Avenue had been renamed Georgia Avenue. Military and Shepherd Roads are slated for realignment as indicated by the overlay drawn in dotted lines.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

134 A: MAP CHRONOLOGY1924 Baist Real Estate Map

The 1924 Baist Map shows the continuing growth of Brightwood. Shepherd Road, renamed Concord Avenue, is shown realigned south and east of Matthew Gault Emery’s estate. Colorado Avenue has taken the place of 14th Street.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

A: MAP CHRONOLOGY 1351931 Baist Real Estate Map

Concord Avenue is shown as completely developed up to Georgia Avenue, and Military Road has been widened west of the street. By this time, the United States government had purchased the land where Fort Stevens was located. Residential development continued with the building of rowhouses and duplexes. Paul Junior High School and Brightwood Elementary School had been constructed in the neighborhood.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

136 A: MAP CHRONOLOGY1945 Baist Real Estate Map

By 1945 Brightwood had become an urban neighborhood with apartment buildings constructed throughout. Side streets had been developed completely, and portions of the original Piney Branch Road spur removed.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

A: MAP CHRONOLOGY 137

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

138 B: STUDIO TEAM SURVEY

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

B: STUDIO TEAM SURVEY 139

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

140 C: TE PROGRAM INFORMATION

help generate ideas and opportunities for the use of these [TE] funds.”3 Although any individual or group may advocate for a particular project, only a state, state, agency, local government, or non-governmental organization may become the project’s sponsor. The role of the sponsor is critical. TE is not a grant. Rather, it is a federal-aid reimbursement program designed to repay the sponsor of an eligible project following its completion.4 As such the sponsor is contractually obligated to fund the project and complete all work prior to being reimbursed.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers TE to each state’s Department of Transportation (DOT). The relevant state DOT then enters into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the project sponsor. The sponsor agrees to “develop the project as described in the

The Transportation Enhancements program (TE) began in 1991 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The program was designed “to encourage transportation planning and projects that would not only provide transportation systems, but also improve and revitalize communities.”1 When ISTEA’s legislation expired in 1998, Congress reaffirmed this commitment by passing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and again with the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFE TEA: LU) on August 10, 2005. Today, under SAFE TEA: LU, the TE program continues to guide and fund transportation projects that are not limited to road construction and repair, but foster a diverse range of activities designed to promote economic and social welfare. To qualify for the TE program a project must

meet three basic criteria: 1) Provide some degree of public access,

including view from a public right-of-way

2) Relate in some general way to surface (non-aerial) transportation

3) Meet the requirements of at least one of the 12 designated TE activities.2

The implementation of a TE project begins when a concerned citizen recognizes that a given resource deserves to be improved and/or protected. Indeed, the federal government has stated that, “Citizens should

scope of work according to state and federal regulations and procedures.”5 The state DOT in turn agrees to reimburse the sponsor for a designated portion of the project’s cost. This sum is known as the federal award. The sponsor pays the balance, known as the non-federal match.6

Following the establishment of a formal working arrangement through the signed MOA, the sponsor must then proceed through several steps in order to assure that the project develops according to state and federal laws.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

C: TE PROGRAM INFORMATION 141

hires a contractor, the sponsor must comply with the MOA, and will not be reimbursed until the required work is finished.

8. Invoice completed work and receive reimbursement. Throughout the process the sponsor must keep detailed records regarding when work is completed and how much it cost. These records are required so that the state DOT can issue the reimbursement funds.

9. Record keeping. Even after the end of the project, the sponsor must maintain its records in case a future audit is necessary. A construction certificate should also be filed as proof that the project was designed, constructed, and approved according to state and federal guidelines and requirements.7

1. Select a project manager who will coordinate all aspects of the project, including financing, communication, contracting, and compliance.

2. Where necessary obtain environmental clearance and clearance to provide right-of-way access.

3. Formalize the design and plan of the project. This stage may involve holding public meetings, assessing resource impacts, and ensuring the design conforms to state and federal codes.

4. Submit required paperwork to the relevant state and federal agencies. Submissions typically include environmental clearance, construction plans, permits, design certification, and necessary clearances.

5. Invite bids. Most likely several firms

and companies will compete for the work created by the TE project. The sponsor must ensure that each bid complies with contracting and bidding regulations, as well as minimum-wage requirements.

6. Select contractor(s). After receiving bids, the coordinator selects a contractor or contractors to carry out the work and implement the project. Alternatively, the sponsor may undertake the work itself.

7. Complete the work as required by the MOA. Whether or not the sponsor

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

centers, viewing areas, designation signs, and markers.Landscaping and Scenic BeautificationImprovements such as street furniture, lighting, public art; landscaping along streets, historic highways, trails, interstates, waterfronts, and gateways.Historic PreservationPreservation of buildings and facades in historic districts; restoration, and reuse of historic buildings for transportation-related purposes; access improvements to historic sites and buildings.

Figure 71: 12 Transportation Enhancements ActivitiesPedestrian and Bicycle FacilitiesNew or reconstructed sidewalks, walkways, curb ramps, bike lane striping, wide pavedshoulders, bike parking, bus racks, off-road trails, bike and pedestrian bridges, and underpasses.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education ActivitiesPrograms designed to encourage walking and bicycling by providing potential users with education and safety instruction through classes, pamphlets, and signage.Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and SitesAcquisition of scenic land easements, vistas and landscapes; purchase of buildings in historic districts or historic properties; reservation of farmland.Scenic or Historic Highway Programs Including Tourist and Welcome CentersConstruction of turnouts, overlooks, visitor

river clean-ups, and wildlife crossings.Establishment of Transportation MuseumsConstruction of transportation museums, including the conversion of railroad stations or historic properties to museums with transportation themes, and exhibits or the purchase of transportation-related artifacts.8

Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Buildings, Structures or FacilitiesRestoration of railroad depots, bus stations, and lighthouses; rehabilitation of rail trestles, tunnels and bridges.Conversion of Abandoned Railway Corridors to TrailsAcquiring railroad rights-of-way; planning, designing and constructing multi-use trails; developing rail-with-trail projects; purchasing unused railroad property for reuse.Control and Removal of Outdoor AdvertisingBillboard inventories or removal of illegal and nonconforming billboards.Archaeological Planning and ResearchResearch, preservation planning and interpretation; developing interpretive signs, exhibits and guides; inventories and surveys.Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife ConnectivityRunoff pollution studies, soil erosion controls, detention and sediment basins,

142 C: TE PROGRAM INFORMATION

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

C: TE PROGRAM INFORMATION 143

Endnotes:1. Allison Bar. Destination Preservation: Putting TEA-21 to Work for Historic Preservvation. Washington, DC: Preservation Action, 1999: 1.2. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse,

Enhancing America’s Communities: A Guide to Transportation Enhancements. Washington, DC: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, Nov. 2002: 2-33. Ibid, 2.4. Ibid, 5.5. Ibid, 8.6. Ibid, 5.7. Ibid, 8-9.8. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse,

Enhancing America’s Communities: A Guide to

Transportation Enhancements, 3.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

144 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Washington Post. August 17, 1902.

Baist, R.H. Real Estate Atlas and Surveys of Washing, District of Columbia, 1913. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Baist’s Real Estate Atlases of Washington, D.C. Philadelphia: G.W. Baist Co., 1948.

Baltimore County Public Schools. “Native Americans of Maryland—Sites.” http://www.bcps.or/offices/lis/models/nativemd/sites1.html (accessed on September 29, 2006).

“Bank of Brightwood Depositors to Get Final Dividend.” The Washington Star. November 28, 1940. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

“Bank of Brightwood to Erect Own Building.” The Washington Post. July 28,

Abel, Joseph H. and Fred N. Severud. Apartment Houses. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1947.

Abbott, Carl. Political Terrain: Washington DC from Tidewater Town to Global Metropolis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Alumni Association of the Military Road School. “Statement of Historic Significance.” Sumner School Archives. March 9, 1998.

“Another Suburban Road.” The Washington Post. April 24, 1888.

“Architect of the Everyday.” The Washington Post. November 6, 2005.

Aubin, Henry. “Once-Quiet Area Is Crime-Haunted.” The Washington Post and

Times Herald. November 27, 1970. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 6, 2006).

“Auto Club is Opened: Large Gathering at the Bungalow Law Night.” The Washington Post. July 18, 1906.

“Autos Fast in Races: Splendid Exhibitions Seen on Brightwood Track.” The Washington Post. October 29, 1903.

“Autos in Washington: Horseless Carriages Popular in the National Capital.” The

1923.

Bar, Allison. Destination Preservation: Putting TEA-21 to Work for Historic Preservation.

Beatty, Sister Mary Alexine. Bank Failures in the District of Columbia in the Twentieth Century. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1949.

Bell, Nelson B. “The Warner Brothers’ New Sheridan Theater Opens Tonight as

Fifteenth Unit in Local Theater Chain.” The Washington Post, January 14, 1937.

“Bore the Brunt of War: History of Church Rebuilt on Site of Fort Stevens.” The Washington Post. October 25, 1902.

Boschke, A. Topographical Map of the District of Columbia: Surveyed in the Years 1856, 1857, 1858, and 1859. Washington, DC: D. McClelland, Blanchard, & Mohun, 1861. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?gmd:1:./ temp/ ~ammem_QI6Y: (accessed on September 24, 2006).

Boyd’s Directory of the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: P.L. Polk & Co., 1922-1973.

“Brightwood Asks for More Schools.” The Washington Post, May 26, 1923.

“Brightwood Bank May Be Purchased and Reopened.” The Washington Herald. October 15, 1932. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Brightwood Citizens’ Association. Recommendations for Appropriations for Public Improvements in the Brightwood Section. Washington, DC: Judd & Detweiler, Inc., 1914.

Brightwood Community Association and Brightwood Park Community

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 145

Association. History of Brightwood Community and Brightwood Park Community. January 6, 1987. MLK Vertical File: Brightwood.

Brightwood Community Association Online. http://www.brightwooddc.com (accessed on September 1, 2006).

“Brightwood Residents Outline Opposition to Townhouse Plans.” The Washington Post. July 3, 1978. MLK Vertical File: Brightwood.

“Brightwood Unit Opposes Non-Segregated Pools.” The Washington Star. April 15, 1950. MLK Vertical File: Brightwood Neighborhood.

Broadnax, Hazel. Interview. Unpublished. October 26, 2006.

Bromley, Michael L. Early Automobiles and Airplanes: The Cultural Lag (Or Why Americans Didn’t Care About Henry Ford and Orville and Wilbur Wright Until After 1909). [2004 Draft]. Stretching-it.com. http://www.stretching-it.com/Autos& Aeros/webdraft.htm (accessed on November 13, 2006).

Brown, George Rothwell. Washington: A Not Too Serious History. Baltimore: The Norman Publishing Company, 1930.

Bryan, Wilhelmus Bogart. A History of the National Capital, Volume II: 1815-1878. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916.

Burden, Ernest. Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Calcott, Steve. “RE: Question from UM Studio.” Email to Anita Hairston. November 17, 2006.

“Church of the Nativity.” Church of the Nativity Archives: Historical Pamphlet, 1951.

“Church to Mark Anniversary.” The Washington Evening Star. October 1, 1932. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

City of Evanston, IL. Evanston’s Affordable

Housing Future. “Glossary.” Evanston, IL: City of Evanston, 2005.

Cleveland Park Historical Society. Cleveland Park DC. http://www.clevelandparkdc.org (accessed on November 12, 2006).

“Closed Bank Sold in Court for $41,010.” The Washington Post. November 30, 1938.

Collins, J. Alfred, et al. “The History of Stansbury Lodge No. 24, F. A. A. M. Brightwood, D.C.: One Hundredth

Anniversary.” Washington, DC: Brightwood Masonic Lodge, 1973.

Cooling, B. Franklin and Walton H. Owen. Mr. Lincoln’s Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington; foreword by Edwin C. Bears. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Co., 1988.

“Cornerstone Laid for Brightwood Masonic Temple.” The Washington Evening Star. DC Grand Lodge Vertical File: Masonic Articles, 1919-1920.

Cox, William Van Zandt. “Public Improvements Secured in the North Section of the District of Columbia by the Brightwood Citizens’ Association: An Address.” Washington, DC: Press of W.F. Roberts, 1898. From the collection of the Washington Historical Society at the Kiplinger Library, Washington, DC.

“Crowded Schools and Financial Lack Perplex Officials.” The Washington Post. April 1, 1924.

Crowell et al. “D.C. Department of Recreation Project: Eight Recreation Areas Phase II.”

Cultural Tourism DC. “African American Heritage Trail.” http://www. culturaltourismdc.org/info-url3948/info-url_show.htm? doc_id=212041&attrib_id=7963 (accessed October 12, 2006).

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

Diggs, Raymond and Reba Diggs. Interview with Mary Konsoulis. Unpublished. September 14, 2006.

Digital Sanborn Maps, 1988-1960. http://sanborn.umi.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/cgi-bin/auth.cgi?command=AccessOK (accessed November 1, 2006).

District of Columbia. reSTORE DC: A Commercial Revitalization Center. “DC Main Streets.” http://restore.dc.gov/restoredc/csp/view.asp (accessed on November 17, 2006).

District of Columbia Department of Transportation. Transportation Planning and Research. “Transportation Enhancement Funding Projects.” http://www.ddot.dc.gov/cwp/ view,a,1246,q,560234,ddotNav_ GID,1686,ddo

DC Council. “History of Self-Government in the District of Columbia.” http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/history.html (accessed on November 20, 2006).

DC Preservation League. Celebrating a Century of Wardman Row-house Neighborhoods.” Curated by Sally Lichtenstein Berk and Caroline Mesrobian Hickman at the Chevy Chase Library, 5625 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC. September 18, 2006.

DC Preservation League. “Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.dcpreservation.org/ districtsfaq.html (accessed November 21, 2006).

DC Preservation League. “Washington’s Most Endangered Places.” 2004-2005.

DC Preservation League. “Tour of the Pre-

World War II Firehouses.” Pamphlet. December 12, 1992.

“D.C. Vacancies in Apartments at Low Figure.” The Washington Herald. December 13, 1931. MLK Vertical File: Apartment Houses, 1913-1939.

“Death of John Saul.” The Washington Post. May 12, 1897.

“Death of M.G. Emery.” The Washington Star. October 13, 1901. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

tNav,%7C32399%7C.asp (accessed on November 1, 2006).

District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. “Great Streets Framework Plan: 7th Street—Georgia Avenue NW.” http://dcbiz.dc.gov/ dmped/frames.asp ?doc=/dmped/lib/dmped/pdf/LowerGeorgia7thUpdate.pdf (accessed on November 29, 2006).

District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development.

“Great Streets Initiative.” http://dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/cwp/view,a,1366,q, 598874,dmpedNav,%7C33026%7C%7C33028%7C.asp (accessed on October 10, 2006).

District of Columbia Grand Lodge Vertical Files: Masonic Articles.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City. http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1354,q,614757.asp (accessed on October 10, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Comprehensive Plan, 1998. http://planning.dc.gov/planning/site/default.asp (accessed on October 10, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Historic Preservation Office. Building

Permit Database, 1929-1935.

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Historic Preservation Office. Historic Preservation Law and Regulations. “Historic Preservation Regulations (10 DCMR Title 10A).” http://planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=/planning/lib/planning/DC_HP_Law_2-144_march_05.pdf (accessed on November 8, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Historic Preservation Office. Historic

146 BIBLIOGRAPHY

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 147

Preservation Procedures. “Historic Designation and Review Process.” http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/ view,a,1284,q,570580,planning Nav_GID,1706,planningNav,%7C33515%7C.asp (accessed on November 9, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Historic Preservation Office. Historic Property Inventory, 2004. http://planning.dc.gov/planning/lib/planning/ New_Inventory_Sep_2004 (accessed on October 14, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. Historic Preservation Office. “Protections and Benefits Afforded to Historic Property.” http://planning.dc.gov/planning/ cwp/view,a,1284,q,570825, planningNav_GID,1706,planningNav, %7C33515%7C.asp (accessed on November 9, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. “Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan: Cluster 17.” Summer 2002. http://neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/neighborhoodaction/ frames.asp?doc=/neighborhoodaction/lib/neighborhoodaction/Cluster17_final.pdf (accessed on September 20, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Planning. “Upper Georgia Land Development Plan.” http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1285,q,638046.asp (accessed

on September 22, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue. Real Property Assessment Database. https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Search.jsp?search_type=Assessment (accessed on September 12, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Zoning. “Zoning Commission for the District of Columbia Notice of Public Hearing.” http://www.oldcitycapitolhill.org/images/ pdf/hstreet/H%20Street%20Overlay%20Plan%20April%207,%202005.pdf (accessed on November 14, 1006).

District of Columbia Office of Zoning. Zoning the National’s Capital. “Summary of Overlay Districts.” http://dcoz,dc,gov/info/overlay.shtm (access on November 14, 2006).

District of Columbia Office of Zoning. “Zoning the National’s Capital.” http://www.dcoz.dcgov.org/services/bza/bza.shtm (accessed on November 14, 2006).

District of Columbia Public Schools. Historic Preservation Division. “School Building Survey.” Sumner School Archives. September 30, 1987.

Dobrin, Adam A. “Go-Go Bars Draw Fire On Upper Georgia Avenue.” The Washington Post. September 8, 1982.

http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18, 2006).

“Dreyfuss View.” The Washington Post. October 29, 1966.

“Edmund Dreyfuss Obituary.” The Washington Post. July 11, 1982.

“Electrical Fire Guts Morton’s.” The Washington Post. August 6, 1993. MLK Vertical File: Stores.

“Emory Methodist to Celebrate Anniversary.” The Washington Evening Star. November 15, 1952.

ExploreDC.org. “Local History: Building a Capital City: Boss Shepherd Remakes the City.” http://exploredc.org/print.php?id+4&PHPSESSID= 01b1504ec95dla00c9f67fedC87fd67 (accessed September

30, 2006).

Federal Highway Administration. “Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions: Transportation Enhancements Program.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/te.htm. (accessed on November 29, 2006).

Firefighters Association of the District of Columbia. 100 Years of Glory: A History of the DC Fire Department, 1871-1971. Washington, DC: Mount Vernon Publishing Co., 1971.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

148 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Handly, Jacqui. Civil War Defenses of Washington, DC: A Cultural Landscape Inventory. Washington, DC: GPO (Falls Church Office, Denver Service Center, NPS), 1996.

Hairston, Anita. “RE: Question from UM Studio.” Email to Christina Hiett. November 17, 2006.

Harriston, Keith. “District’s Brightwood: A Community United.” The Washington Post. September 28, 1991. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18, 2006).

Hecht, Arthur. “Marching Up Georgia: A Tour of Historic Georgia Avenue.” Kiplinger Library of the Washington Historical Society.

Hickman, Caroline Mesrobian. “Mihran

Fleishman, Sandra. “Wardman’s World: Developer’s Houses Defined the District in the Early 20th Century and Are Still Prized Today.” The Washington Post. October 15, 2005.

“Food Market Poll – Dinners to Start the Year Right.” The Washington Post. December 28, 2006.

“Fraternal Orders.” The Washington Post, August 3, 1913.

“George Lightfoot Obituary.” The Washington Post. December 27, 1947.

Goode, James M. Best Addresses: A Century of Washington’s Distinguished Apartment Houses. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1988.

Grandine, Katherine Elizabeth.

“Brightwood: Its Development and Suburbanization, 1800-1915.” Master’s Thesis, The George Washington University, 1983.

Green, Constance McLaughlin. Washington: A History of the Capital, 1880-1950. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Haines Directory (Criss Cross). Washington, DC: P.L. Polk & Co., 1973-1980.

Mesrobian (1889-1975): Washington Architect.” Journal of Design Action, Volume 2, Issue 3, 1983, 1-4.

Historic Preservation Review Board. Notice of Final Rulemaking. “Glossary.” Washington, DC: District of Columbia Office of Planning, 2004

“History of the Brightwood Community and Brightwood Park Community.” January 6, 1987. MLK Vertical File: Residential Sections A-C, Brightwood.

“Hope for Rejuvenation: Morton’s Opens Branch Store in Poverty Area.” The Washington Post. August 13, 1967. MLK Vertical File: Stores.

Hopkins, Griffith M. 1886 Real Estate Plat Book of Washington, District of Columbia. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Hopkins, Griffith M. 1887 Real Estate Plat Book of Washington, District of Columbia. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Hopkins, Griffith M. 1892 Real Estate Plat Book of Washington, District of Columbia. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Hunter, Kathleen. “Heritage Education in the Social Studies.” ERIC Digest.

November 1988.

Jester, Thomas C. Twentieth Century Building Materials: History and Conservation. New York: McGraw Hill Professional Publishing, 1995.

“John C. Proctor, Historian, Dead.” The Washington Post and Times Herald, April 26, 1956.

Kennedy, George. “Thriving Brightwood Section Can Recall Historical Past.” The Evening Star. September 4, 1950.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 149

Kernan, Michael. “Georgia Avenue: One City Artery.” The Washington Post and Times Herald. August 26, 1973. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18, 2006).

“Killed by Trolley Car: Little Gladys Gilmore’s Life Crushed Out While She Was at Play.” The Washington Post. May 10, 1894.

Kohler, Peter C. Capital Transit: Washington’s Streetcars, The Final Era, 1933-1962. Colesville, MD: National Capital Trolley Museum, 2001.

Kreinheder, Hazel P. “Everywhere You Look: German-American Sites in Washington, DC.” Goethe Institut. http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/was/pro/vtour/ dc1/en_gmbio.htm (accessed September 12, 2006).

Land Use Law Center of the Pace University School of Law. “Universal Glossary of Land Use Terms and Phrases.” http://www.nymir.org/zoning/Glossary.html#O (accessed on November 28, 2006).

Lee, Antoinette. School Building Survey: District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Historic Preservation Division, 1987.

Lessoff, Alan. The Nation and Its City: Politics, “Corruption” and Progress in Washington, D.C., 1861-1902. Baltimore:

The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Locke, Kevin. Interview with Mary Konsoulis. Unpublished. August 12, 2006.

Los Angeles Conservancy. “Top Ten Myths About Historic Preservation.” By Ken Bernstein. http://www.laconservancy.org/preservation/ Top%20Ten%20Myths%20About%20Historic%20Preservation.pdf (accessed November 8, 2006).

Mack, Oscar. “Inspection Report. September 18, 1874.

Making Sense of Place, Inc. “What is a Sense of Place?” http://www.makingsenseofplace.com /about-place.htm (accessed on November 30, 2006).

Maury, William M. Alexander “Boss” Shepherd and the Board of Public Works. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, 1975.

Meyer, Eugene L. “Deli-Bakery is a Roll-Model.” The Washington Post. September 25, 1987.

Meyer, Eugene L. “Saving Memories of a Deli That Was Family.” The Washington Post. February 12, 1998.

Military Road School. “Application for the District of Columbia’s Inventory of Historic Places.” Sumner School Archives. March 1998.

Miller, John Anderson. Fares, Please: A Popular History of Trolleys, Horse-Cars, Buses, Elevateds, and Subways. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1941.

Miller, Mike. “The Meaning of Community (Community Organizing).” Social Policy, June 2002. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1820433_ITM&referid=2090 (accessed on November 20, 2006).

Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1997.

National Capital Planning Commission. “Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital.” http://www.ncpc,gov?planning_init/CompPlanOnline/Parks&OpenSpace.html (accessed on October 10, 2006.

National Park Service. “Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.” http://www.cr.nps.gov/locallaw/arch_stnds_10.htm (accessed on November 25, 2006).

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

150 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Columbia. “District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan, 2000.” http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/ pad/stateplans/dc.htm (accessed on October 30, 2006).

National Park Service. National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. Focus on 2000: A Heritage Education Perspective. Murfreesboro, TN: The Center for Historic Preservation of Middle Tennessee State University, 1997.

National Park Service. “National Historic Landmarks Program.” http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/ (accessed on November 15, 2006).

National Park Service: “The National Register of Historic Places.” http://www.cr.nps. gov/ nr/publications/bulletins/brochure/ (accessed on November 30, 2006).

National Park Service. A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of

Washington, Parts I and II by CEHP, Incorporated. Washington, DC: GPO, 2004. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/civilwar/hrst.htm (accessed on September 18, 2006).

National Park Service. “Battleground National Cemetery.” http://www.nps.gov/archive/ rocr/ftcircle/btcemet.htm (accessed September 28, 2006).

National Park Service. “The Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C.: Fort Stevens.” http://www.nps.gov/cwdw/stevens.htm I (accessed on October 2, 2006).

National Park Service. Fort Circle Parks: Final Management Plan. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior:

National Park Service, 2004.

National Park Service. “Fort Stevens.” http://www.nps.gov/archive/ rocr/ftcircle/stevens.htm (accessed on September 20, 2006).

National Park Service. “Historic Landscape Initiative.” http://www.cr.nps.gov/ hps/hli/introguid.htm (accessed on September 26, 2006).

National Park Service. Heritage Preservation Services. Plan profile: District of

National Park Service. “Superintendent’s Lodge: Physical History and Condition Assessment.” By P.C. Architrave, Architects. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 2004.

National Park Service. Working on the Past in Local Historic Districts. “People Protecting Community Resources.” http://www.dcpreservation.org/districtsfaq.html (accessed on November 2, 2006).

National Register of Historic Places. “Arlington Forest Application.” http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/ons/pdf/arlington_forest_without_inventory.pdf (accessed on October 13, 1006).

National Register of Historic Places. “Washington Heights Historic District Application.” http://www.kaloramacitizens.org/news/files/Washington% 20 Heights%20NATIONAL%20REGISTER%20FORM%20HPRB.pdf (accessed on September 26, 2006)

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Enhancing America’s Communities: A Guide to Transportation Enhancements. Washington, DC: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, November 2002.

National Transportation Enhancements Program Clearinghouse. “National TE Projects Lists.” Enhancements.org. http://www.enhancements.org/projectlist.asp (accessed on November 2, 2006).

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. State TE Program Profile. “District of Columbia.” Enhancements.org. http://www.enhancements.org/Stateprofile.asp (accessed on November 2, 2006).

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 151

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. “TE Project Examples.” Enhancements.org http://www.enhancements.org/examples.asp (accessed on October 29, 2006).

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Transportation Enhancements: Summary of Nationwide Spending as of FY 2005. Washington, DC: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse, May 2006.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. National Trust Main Street Center. “Main Street: Revitalizing Your Commercial District.” http://www.mainstreet.org (accessed on April 21, 2006).

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Revitalizing Downtown: The Professional

Guide to the Main Street Approach. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation National Main Street Center, 1998.

“Negro Academy Holds 29th Annual Meeting.” The Washington Post. January 3, 1926.

“Negro Leaders Urged To Expand Training.” MLK Vertical File: Stores.

“Objects to the Rules: The Capital Automobile Club Asks for Uniform

Law.” The Washington Post. March 26, 1902.

Odell, Rice. “Some Negroes are Advancing in Some Places.” The Washington Daily News. June 5, 1963. MLK Vertical File: Brightwood Neighborhood.

Petworth Neighborhood of Washington, DC. “History and Geography.” http://www.petworthdc.net/petworth_history.htm (accessed on September 28, 2006).

Peoples Involvement Corporation. “Georgia Avenue: Five Miles of Historic Evolution of Ethnic Diversity.” Kiplinger Library of the Washington Historical Society.

Perlin, Carole. Interview with Mary Konsoulis. Unpublished. September 2006.

Pinsker, Matthew. Lincoln’s Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldier’s Home. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

“Portfolio for the Brightwood Elementary School Modernization and Addition.” Grunley.com. http://www.grunley.com/portfolio/educational/brightwood.asp (accessed on October 1, 2006).

Prince, Thomas. “Washington, D.C.’s Streetcar Suburbs: A Comparative Analysis of Brookland and Brightwood,

1870-1900.” Master’s Thesis, The University of Maryland, 1979.

Proctor, John Clagett. “Early Georgia Avenue.” The Washington Evening Star. April 7, 1946. MLK Library Washingtoniana Collection.

Proctor, John Clagett. “History of the Seventh Street Turnpike.” The Washington Star. February 14, 1932. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Proctor, John Clagett. “Memoirs of Brightwood.” The Washington Star. March 18, 1951. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Proctor, John Clagett. Washington and Environs. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishing Company, 1949.

Proctor, John Clagett. Washington Past and Present: A History. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1930.

“Progress” Section. The Washington Star. October, 7 1956. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Pyatt, Rudolph A., Jr. “Morton’s Opens New Store Today: Family-Owned Chain Is Bucking Trend of Delayed Expansion.” The Washington Post. September 30, 1982. MLK Vertical File: Stores.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

152 BIBLIOGRAPHY

San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, 2003.

Scott, Pamela. “Residential Architecture of Washington, D.C. and Its Suburbs.” The Library of Congress Research Center. September 16, 2005. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/ adecenter/essays/Scott.html (accessed September 29, 2006).

Sefton, Douglas Peter. “National Register of Historic Places Draft Application for the Sheridan Theater and Park ‘n Shop.” Washington, DC: DC Preservation League, March 22, 2006.

Shannon, J. Harry. “With the Rambler.” The Sunday Star. April 23, 1916. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

Smith, Katherine Schneider, ed. Washington at Home: An Illustrated history of

Ray, Laura Collison, H.T. Waesche, and Gerald E. Keene. “A History of Emory Methodist Church, 1832-1962.” One Hundred Thirtieth Anniversary. Washington, DC: Emory United Methodist Church, 1962.

The Redevelopment Fund. 2006 Neighborhood Development and Investment Plan. “Community Workshop Results: Brightwood, Washington, DC.” Unpublished Survey Results, 2006.

“Rites Today for Mrs. Osborne: Recalled Meeting President Lincoln.” MLK Vertical Files: Brightwood.

Rogers, Jeanne. “District School Integration Becomes Effective as Task Of Booking 12,000 Begins.” The Washington Post and Times Herald. September 9, 1954.

Rosenfeld, Stephen S. “Interracial Group Tries to Make Living Easier in Changing NW Neighborhood.” The Washington Post and Times Herald. January 28, 1962. http://www.proquest.com (access on November 20, 2006).

“Samuel J. Prescott & Co. “Classified Advertisement.” The Washington Post, June 12, 1912.

San Francisco Department of Planning. A Preservation Element: San Francisco Preservation Bulletin #17. “Glossary.”

Neighborhood in the Nation’s Capital. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1988.

Spayd, Liz. “New D.C. Grocery Is Suited To Neighborhoods’ Appetite.” The Washington Post. May 18, 1992. http://www.proquest.com (accessed November 18, 2006).

Sutner, Shaun. “Hechinger’s Closing Protested.” The Washington Post. December 5, 1991. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18, 2006).

Takoma Park Neighborhood Library History. http://www.dclibrary.org/ branches/tpk/history.html (accessed September 28, 2006).

“The Automobile Club of Washington.” The Washington Post. October 25, 1908.

“Thousands Enjoy Second Georgia Avenue Day.” The Washington Afro-American. September 15, 1984. MLK Vertical File: Streets: Georgia Avenue.

“Through the Lens: Jeremy Goldberg’s Washington.” The Record: Publication of the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington, 27 (2005-2006).

Traffic Research Division of the Research and Development Department. 100 Years of Rail Transportation in the Metropolitan Washington Area. Washington, DC:

DC Transit System, Inc., 1967.

“Two Congregations Raise Funds for New Synagogues.” The Washington Post. September 20, 1945. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18 2006).

“To Open New Home: Automobile Club is Nearing Completion.” The Washington Post. June 24, 1906.

Torres, Louis. “To the Immortal Name and Memory of George Washington”: The

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 153

United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Construction of the Washington Monument. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984.

Townsend, E.D. “General Orders, No. 83.” Washington, DC: War Department Adjutant General’s Office, April 1, 1863 [ORA, I, 25, part 2 (Serial 40), 186].

United States Bureau of the Census. Manuscript Census Forms, 1860-1930. Available from www.ancestry.com. U.S. Census Collection Online. http://ancestry.com (accessed multiple dates in October 2006).

United States National Archives and Records Administration. District of Columbia Building Permits Collection. Washington, DC.

Wagner, Richard. Guiding Design of Main Street: Buildings. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation National Main Street Center, 1994.

“Wardman Has Sold 150 Units at Fort Stevens.” The Washington Post. July 12, 1925.

“Wardman Sells Homes on Ft. Stevens Ridge.” The Washington Post. September 12, 1926.

“Wardman’s World.” The Washington Post. Oct. 14, 2005.

“Washington Apartments Bear Names That Reflect Romance.” The Evening Star. April 6, 1935. MLK Vertical File: Apartment Houses, 1913 – 1939.

“Washington Automobile Club.” The Washington Post. January 15, 1901.

Washington Board of Trade. The Book of Washington. Washington, DC: Cleland C. McDevitt, 1927.

Wheeler, Linda. “Nude-Bar Owners Lose In D.C. Appeals Court.” The Washington Post. February 5, 1987.

Wheelock, Perry (Cultural Resource Manager, Rock Creek Park, National Park Service). Interview with Jonathan Pliska.

September 25, 2006.

Wilgoren, Debbie. “At Deli: Bagels, Lox and Tears; Staff, Patrons Mourn Closing of Longtime Store.” The Washington Post. February 2, 1998. http://www.proquest.com (accessed on November 18, 2006).

Wikipedia.org. “Brightwood, Washington, DC.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Brightwood_Washington,_D.C. (accessed November 27, 2006).

Wikipedia.org. “Ford Model T.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ford_Model_T (accessed on November 16, 2006).

Wikipedia.org. “History of Washington, DC.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ History_of_Washington,_D.C. (accessed on November 26, 2006).

Wordreference.com. English Dictionary. “Community.” http://www.wordreference. com/definition/community (accessed on November 30, 2006).

“Youthful Financier Surrenders Self on Advice of Attorney.” The Washington Daily News. July 14, 1932. MLK Washingtoniana Collection.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

154 IMAGE CREDITS

Figure 6: Library of CongressFigure 7: nps.gov/archive/rocr/ftcircle/stevens.htmFigure 8: nps.gov/archive/rocr/ftcircle/stevens.htmFigure 9: National Park ServiceFigure 10: Library of CongressFigure 11: Library of CongressFigure 12: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 13: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 14: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 15: Evening Star, September 4, 1950Figure 16: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 17: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 18: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 19: Kiplinger Library at the

Front Cover(clockwise from top)Library of CongressKiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyKiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyKiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyJon PliskaKiplinger Library at the Washington Historical Society

Chapter One Cover Page(from top to bottom)Darian SchwabKiplinger Library at the Washington Historical Societynps.gov/archive/rocr/ftcircle/stevens.htmFigure 1: The Reinvestment Fund, Emory Beacon of Light, Inc.

Chapter Two Cover Page(from top to bottom)Washington Post, October 25, 1908Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyBen Riniker

Figure 2: memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.plFigure 3: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 4: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 5: Library of Congress

Washington Historical SocietyFigure 20: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 21: Washingtoniana Division of the District of Columbia Public LibraryFigure 22: Ben RinikerFigure 23: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 24: Washington Post, March 21, 1974Figure 25: Ben RinikerFigure 26: Washington Post, September 8, 1982Figure 27: Washingtoniana Division of the District of Columbia Public Library

Figure 28: Washingtoniana Division of the District of Columbia Public LibraryFigure 29: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 30: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 31: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 32: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 33: Washington Post, October 25, 1908Figure 34: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 35: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical SocietyFigure 36: Kiplinger Library at the Washington Historical Society

Chapter Three Cover Page(from top to bottom)http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a

,1282,q,569383,planningNav,|32341|.aspwww.neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/neighborhoodaction/frames.asp?doc=/neighborhoodaction/lib/neighborhoodaction/Cluster17_final.pdfDarian Schwab

Figure 37: www.neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/neighborhoodaction/frames.asp?doc=/neighborhoodaction/lib/neighborhoodaction/Cluster17_final.pdf

Chapter Four Cover Page(from top to bottom)

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

IMAGE CREDITS 155

www.dcoz.dcgov.org/info/map.shtmBen Riniker

Figure 38: National Parks ServiceFigure 39: http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1282,q,569383,planningNav,|32341|.aspFigure 40: http://dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/frames.asp?doc=/dmped/lib/dmped/pdf/AboutGreatStreets.pdf41. Ben Riniker

Chapter Five Cover Page(from top to bottom)National Park ServiceBen RinikerBen Riniker

Inventory Key: Google Maps

Figure 42: Ben RinikerFigure 43: Darian Schwab

Figure 44: Jon PliskaFigure 45: Ben RinikerFigure 46: Ben RinikerFigure 47: Ben RinikerFigure 48: Ben RinikerFigure 49: Darian SchwabFigure 50: Darian SchwabFigure 51: Sharon GambleFigure 52: Ben RinikerFigure 53: Ben RinikerFigure 54: Sharon GambleFigure 55: Amy BolaskyFigure 56: Ben RinikerFigure 57: Ben Riniker

Figure 58: Ben RinikerFigure 59: Amy BolaskyFigure 60: Darian SchwabFigure 61: Amy BolaskyFigure 62: Ben RinikerFigure 63: Amy BolaskyFigure 64: Amy BolaskyFigure 65: Amy BolaskyFigure 66: Ben RinikerFigure 67: Darian SchwabFigure 68: Ben RinikerFigure 69: Ben RinikerFigure 70: Ben Riniker

Appendices Cover Page(from top to bottom)Kathy ManickeBen Riniker

Appendix A1861 Map: memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl

1881 Map: Library of Congress1887 Map: Library of Congress1892 Map: Library of Congress1903 Map: Library of Congress1913 Map: Library of Congress1924 Map: Library of Congress1931 Map: Library of Congress1945 Map: Library of Congress

Appendix CFigure 71: Enhancing America’s Communities: A Guide to Transportation Enhancements, 3.

geo

rgia

ave

nu

ew

ash

ing

ton

, dc

BRIGHTWOOD

156