ST Elizabeth's Master Plan

Master Plan and Design Guidelines
Government of the District of Columbia

June 4, 2012
Final Plan
This report was generated in collaboration with the following organizations:

The District of Columbia Office of Planning
The Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development
The District of Columbia Department of Transportation
Consultant Team:
Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners

EHT Traceries
RCLCO (Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC)
Arup
Collaborative Strategies Group
Sagesse
ArchiBIM
Master Planning and Urban Design

Historic Preservation Consultation
Market Strategists
Sustainability Consultation
Public Outreach
Branding Strategist
Perspective Renderings
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Executive Summary.....................................3
Saint Elizabeths East Campus.................................. 3

A Master Plan for Saint Elizabeths East................... 5
Architectural Guidelines . ....................................... 5
Taking the Next Steps............................................... 5
Chapter 1: Introduction.............................9
The Opportunity..................................................... 10
The Vision for the Future....................................... 13
The Need for a Master Plan................................... 16
2011 Master Planning Process . ............................ 18
Applying the Master Plan....................................... 20
Chapter 3: Architecture and Design

Guidelines...................................................83
Site-Wide Guidelines.............................................. 83
Historic Structures................................................... 84
New Architecture.................................................... 88
Sector Principles and Guidelines......................... 102

Sector: Farm Complex.......................................... 102
Parcel 1................................................................... 106
Sector: Maple Quadrangle................................... 110

Parcel 3................................................................... 113
Parcel 4................................................................... 120
Parcel 5................................................................... 126
For the City:...............................................................20

For the Community:.................................................20
For the Development Community:.........................21
Sector: MLK Neighborhood Center .................... 130
Chapter 2: Master Plan.............................25
Parcel 9....................................................................147
Parcel 12................................................................. 152
Master Plan Intent.................................................. 25

Master Plan Overview............................................ 25
Places: Neighborhood Anchors..............................26

Places: Innovation Hub.............................................28
Places: Residential/Community Sectors................29
Paths......................................................................... 30
Connections............................................................. 30
Site-Wide Principles............................................... 31
Historic Resources....................................................31
Circulation and Connectivity ................................. 38
Planning and Design ..............................................42
Density and Building Heights...................................45
Building Massing .....................................................47
Public Realm ......................................................... 48
Parcel 7................................................................... 133

Parcel 8................................................................... 140
Sector: Campus Intersection .............................. 144

Sector: 13th Street............................................... 154
Parcel 6................................................................... 158
Parcel 13................................................................. 162
Sector: CT Village.................................................. 164

Parcel 10................................................................. 168
Parcel 11..................................................................172
Parcel 14..................................................................178
Sector: Congress Heights Transit Center ............180

Parcel 15................................................................. 184
Parcel 16................................................................. 188
Parcel 17................................................................. 192
Additional Parcels................................................. 194

Parcel 2................................................................... 194
Parcel 18 ................................................................ 195
Street Frontage ....................................................... 48

Open Space.............................................................. 58
Public Art and Creative Programming ................... 60
Parking .....................................................................61
Service and Loading................................................. 63
Chapter 4: Implementation.......................199
Sustainable Vision for the East Campus................. 64

Infrastructure . ........................................................ 64
Energy Use and Generation.................................... 65
Water Use and Reuse...............................................67
Stormwater.............................................................. 68
Materials and Waste................................................69
Hazardous Materials.................................................70
Habitat and Biodiversity . ........................................72
Wetlands...................................................................73
Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................74
Acknowledgements and Glossary...........207
The Environment and Sustainability .................... 64
Putting it Together ................................................ 76
Master Plan Approval and Completion of Site

Entitlements......................................................... 200
Infrastructure and Site Systems Design and
Construction......................................................... 200
Development Solicitation.................................... 202
Development Design and Construction.............. 202
Acknowledgements.............................................. 207
Consultants............................................................ 207
Community Action Team...................................... 207
District of Columbia............................................... 208
Agency Partners.................................................... 208
Glossary ............................................................... 209
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Saint Elizabeths East Campus

For more than a decade, the District of Columbia has been an enduring bright spot in the national economy, with
substantial job growth, widespread real estate development, and improved quality of life. The redevelopment of
the Saint Elizabeths East Campus offers the opportunity to build significantly on these successes. The 180-acre
campus, comprising part of a former mental health hospital complex, is one of the Districts largest redevelopment
sites. Its unique setting offers the capacity to support approximately five million square feet of mixed-use
development. District Mayor Vincent C. Gray and other city officials recognize that this site presents a once-ina-generation opportunity to transform a historic landmark into a vibrant neighborhood center to showcase the
Districts emerging innovation economy.
The East Campus Master Plan builds on this potential by creating the framework for an important community hub
within the Congress Heights neighborhood, while promoting the Districts emerging innovation economy through
redevelopment. Its recommendations for residential, commercial, cultural, and institutional uses aim to bring
renewed vibrancy to the East Campus as well as to surrounding areas, Ward 8, and the city of Washington.
At the same time, the Master Plan respects the remarkable history of Saint Elizabeths. The hospital was established
by the United States Congress in the 1850s, largely as the result of the efforts of mental health advocate Dorothea
Dix, and became known for its pioneering treatments and distinctive facilities. Both the East and West campuses
were added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1979, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990,
and declared a local historic district in 2005.
In 1987, the federal government transferred the 180-acre East Campus to the District and, in 2004, the General
M aster P lan and D esign G uidelines
Figure 0.1: 1950s Photo of Maple Quad
Services Administration (GSA) assumed control of the
Therefore, this Master Plan is comprehensive in scope
West Campus for use as a future federal government
to provide standards for revitalization of historic
facility. In 2007, the US Department of Homeland
resources, land use and development, infrastructure,
Security (DHS) decided to consolidate its operations on
building height and density, public open space, and
the West Campus and redevelop that site.
sustainable measures in every sector of the site. Its
From the Districts perspective, the DHS consolidation

is seen as a potential catalyst for expanding the citys
innovation sector and diversifying its economy. Over
time, this federal agency will increase neighborhood
demand for improved retail amenities and services.
Plan of improvements to the East Campus that have

been coordinated and approved by the District of
Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Moreover, proximity to DHS and the historic character
Chapter One of this document provides background
of the Saint Elizabeths campus provide a unique
on the Saint Elizabeths East Campus and the planning
advantage in attracting federal contractors and
process. It includes analyses of its position in the region,
security-related businesses to this area. Such economic
contextual conditions in and around the planning area,
activity, in turn, will help increase entrepreneurial
and a summary description of the community process
activity, venture capital investment, and workforce
to develop this plan.
development within the District.
recommendations are buttressed by a Transportation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Master Plan for Saint

Elizabeths East
Chapter Two presents the Master Plan and site-
and/or redevelopment, and many other urban design
wide guidelines. Part of the plan sets forth a Vision
components. The Illustrative Concept Plan is not a
representing the future assets and characteristics of
specific development plan for the East Campus but
the East Campus as desired by the District, community
a tool for understanding a shared vision of Saint
representatives, and local stakeholders. The Vision
Elizabeths as a physical setting as well as for gauging
Statement is supported by a series of goals that
how well future development proposals conform to
summarize the principal aspirations of the Master Plan
this overall vision.
along with specific steps for achieving each objective.

This Master Plan is intended to be a roadmap for future
over the next five to 20 years. Specifically, the Plan is
A r c h i t e ct u r a l
Guidelines
organized around the following key issues:
Chapter Three presents the Architectural and Design
development and its implementation, which will evolve
Guidelines for the East Campus, setting standards for:
Historic Resources
Transportation and Connectivity
Historic Structure Treatment and Building Addition
Building Height and Density
New Architectural Design and Materials
Land Use and Development
Parcel-Specific Guidelines
Public Open Space
The Guidelines and Principles found in Chapters Two
Sustainability and Site-Wide Infrastructure
and help to inform future implementation efforts as
The Illustrative Concept Plan, a graphic interpretation
and Three communicate the intent of the Master Plan

redevelopment of the East Campus progresses.
of redevelopment ideas, has been the primary means

to develop and test ideas on the East Campus. Multiple
iterations of the Illustrative Concept Plan were
developed and presented to the public and community
Ta k i n g t h e N e x t St e p s
stakeholders.
They were subsequently united to
Chapter four describes in more detail the way that
produce the Illustrative Concept Plan presented in
the Master Plan is implemented. The Saint Elizabeths
Chapter Two.
East Campus Master Plan provides a foundation for

preserving and enhancing the best of this historic
This plan includes a reconfigured street network (based
setting, while making the most of opportunities that
on the DDOT Transportation Plan), proposals for new
come with new development. Implementation of the
public open space, sites for either new development
Master Plan will require a planned and coordinated
Figure 0.2: Perspective illustration of the proposed East Campus.
effort, involving the community as whole, key
While there is a general understanding of the timing
stakeholders, including the private sector, federal
of these steps, the implementation of the Master
partners, and city officials and staff. The steps toward
Plan will be phased to respond to market forces that
implementation involve the four key areas:
will evolve over time as the market permits. It will
Master Plan approval and completion of site

entitlements;
Infrastructure and site systems design and

construction;
Development solicitation; and
Development design and construction.
also be influenced by the availability of resources to

invest in the transportation, utility infrastructure, and
rehabilitation of historic structures.
1: Introduction
Figure 1.1: Rendering of historic Saint Elizabeths East Campus
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1: Introduction
Over the past decade, the District of Columbia has been a bright spot in the national economy with substantial
job growth, widespread real estate development, and improved quality of life. The revitalization of the historic
Saint Elizabeths East Campus offers unparalleled the opportunity to build significantly on these successes. Saint
Elizabeths East Campus is the Districts largest redevelopment site in the City. With five million square feet of
development potential, a Metrorail station, adjacency to the new Headquarters of the US Department Homeland
Security, and the rich architectural character of the existing historic buildings, Saint Elizabeths East presents
profound opportunity to renew, restore, and reconnect the campus to the surrounding neighborhoods, Ward 8,
and the city of Washington.
This Master Plan for the 180-acre site is a unique opportunity to merge innovative approaches in historic
preservation, economic development, and sustainability to create a once-in-a-generation chance to stimulate
economic and community revitalization at multiple levels. The Master Plan lays out a vision for a vibrant, mixeduse development with community-serving amenities that will create an important hub for the Ward 8 community
and Districts emerging innovation economy. It is intended to be an implementable roadmap for the future
development that will evolve over the next five to twenty years. The Plan is specifically designed to build on past
planning efforts and form the foundation for the entitlement process that the city will complete to prepare the site
for future development.
The Master Plan presents a unifying long-term vision around which the District, development partners and the
sites neighbors can rally. In addition to site-wide requirements, it offers a compelling picture of a final build-out
of the site based on the best assumptions possible today. Thus, it ensures that what the District builds today will
support its vision for tomorrow.
Di
str
ict
of
Co
M
lum
ar
yla
bia
nd
Fort
McNair
Suitland
Federal Center
Future home
of DHS
Bolling AFB
ile
1M
ile
2M
ile
3M
4M
ile
Potomac River
Saint
Elizabeths East
Figure 1.2: Regional context of the East Campus
The Opportunity
The Saint Elizabeths East Campus comprises almost one
half of the former mental health hospital established
by the United States Congress in the 1850s. Over
the last century, the buildings and landscape on the
campus were developed to reflect advancements in
mental health care and the functional demands of a
19th- and early 20th-century psychiatric institution.
The hospitals philosophy embodied the nations
evolving views towards the mentally ill: Saint Elizabeths
offered treatment in the hopes that patients could
return to their previous lives, a significant departure
from the widely held view that mental illness was
incurable. This progressive thinking extended to
the hospitals accommodation of African Americans
and its pioneering of several treatments, including
psychoanalysis and hydrotherapy. Due to this historic
10
significance as well as the architectural importance of

the site, Saint Elizabeths was added to the National
Register of Historic Places in 1979, designated a National
Historic Landmark in 1990 and declared a local historic
district in 2005.
In 1987, the federal government, thru the US
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
transferred the 180-acre East Campus to the District.
HHS continued to use the West Campus until it was
declared an excess property in 2001. In 2004 the
General Services Administration (GSA) assumed
control of the West Campus for use as a future federal
government facility.
Saint Elizabeths large size, its central regional location,
INTRODUCTION
UCC
West Campus
FEMA
East
Campus
Congress Heights
Main Street
Saint Elizabeths
Hospital
Congress Heights
Metro Station
Figure 1.3: Site context of the East Campus
proximity to downtown and closed-off campus led the
The DHS consolidation is seen as a potential catalyst
US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and GSA to
for growing the innovation sector and diversifying the
select the West Campus as the new DHS headquarters.
citys economy. Over time, DHS will add to the existing
The plans for the West Campus include DHS
neighborhood demand for improved retail amenities
components, such as the National Operation Center,
and services; moreover, proximity to DHS and the
Customs and Border Patrol, and the US Coast Guard
historic character of the Saint Elizabeths campus
which are being relocated from sites across the region.
provide a unique advantage in attracting federal
Through the consolidation, DHS aims to facilitate
contractors and security-related businesses to this
communication, coordination, and cooperation across
area. Such economic activity, in turn, will help increase
the Department, and achieve operational efficiency.
entrepreneurial activity, venture capital investment
Master planning, transportation planning and an
and workforce development within the District.
environmental review process have been underway

since 2005. Construction of the first new building on
the West Campus, the US Coast Guard Headquarters,
will be completed in 2013.
11
SI T E HIS TORY
In the 1850s, the United States Congress established the Government Hospital for the Insane at the urging
of Dorothea Dix and other pioneering advocates for people with mental illnesses. The hospital was located
in a largely rural area on a tract of land. This high plateau overlooking the city of Washington, DC, offered a
natural landscape for the hospital campus to provide therapeutic and recreational opportunities for patients.
The hospital produced all of its own food on property east of the main campus. In 1902, the growth of
hospital functions expanded to this East Campus. The buildings constructed during this period closely
reflect the Italian Renaissance Revival architectural style of the West Campus. The Blackburn Laboratory,
constructed during the late 1900s, marked a shift in the hospitals focus from purely patient care to research
into mental illnesses. The buildings surrounding the Maple Quadrangle were built next, in the 1930s, and their
architecture reflects the hospitals growing institutional stature. The Continuing Treatment (CT) buildings,
completed in the 1940s, constitute the final phase of historic development on the East Campus.
In the 1950s, mental hospitals across the country began to discharge patients into community-based facilities
as the result of backlash against large, impersonal institutions. The quality of patient care at Saint Elizabeths
began to decline with this shifted focus. As a result, the federal government transferred ownership of the
East Campus to the District of Columbia in 1987 to increase the citys capacity to provide mental health care
for its residents. Patient care, however, continued to decline: the hospital lacked adequate medical supplies
and modern facilities. The 2010 opening of the new Saint Elizabeths hospital has remedied these deficiencies
and left the historic campus as a tremendous development opportunity for both the federal and the District
governments.
12
INTRODUCTION
The Vision for the

Future
Mayor Vincent C. Gray has prioritized the revitalization
To that end, the Mayor launched the Saint Elizabeths
of the East Campus and elevated its importance as both
Redevelopment Initiative in 2011 as the umbrella effort
a real estate project and an economic development
to coordinate multiple projects and ongoing operations
opportunity.
affecting the site, including:
The Mayor and other city officials
recognize that the East Campus presents an opportunity

to transform a National Historic Landmark into a
vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood center to showcase
the Districts emerging innovation economy. At the
same time, the redevelopment of the East and West
campuses must be connected to real opportunities
for residents, businesses owners and stakeholders in
the surrounding areas. The citys vision for the East
Campus redevelopment is centered on interweaving
these threads of opportunity into a realistic strategy
for implementation.
Master Plan: The Office of Planning (OP) and

the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and
Economic Development (DMPED), in coordination
with agency partners, have developed this Master
Plan to guide the physical development of the
East Campus. The Plan embodies the revitalization
principles of past planning efforts and aligns the
physical redevelopment of the site with District
policy goals for land use, transportation and
economic development.
Figure 1.4: Ward 8 elementary students participated in an art contest to imagine the new development on the East Campus.
The students artwork is located in Appendix A.
13
11th Street
Bridges
Poplar
Point
Prop
osed
Li
Rou ght Rail
te
Anacostia Metro
Station
Frederick Douglass
House
Barry
Farm
Bolling AFB
West Campus
Suitland Parkway
Saint Elizabeths
Hospital
East
Campus
Congress Heights
Main Street
Congress Heights
Metro Station
Figure 1.5: Congress Heights and Anacostia context
Transportation Plan: The District of Columbia
Innovation Strategy for Economic Development:
Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the
Funded by a grant from the US Economic
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are
Development Administration, the Districts
proposing improvements to the transportation
Innovation Strategy seeks to elevate the District
network serving the Saint Elizabeths East Campus.
into a world-wide leader in innovation and
Prior to moving the project through final design
homeland security technologies. Developing
and construction, an Environmental Assessment
this strategy involved an assessment of the DHS
(EA) of the proposed action and its potential
economy and the creation of an implementation
effects is being prepared in accordance with the
road map that informed key elements of the East
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
Campus Master Plan.
the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508), and the FHWAs
Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23
CFR 771).
14
District Investment and Facilities: Planning for

the East Campus redevelopment has been heavily
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.6: Saint Elizabeths Hospital
coordinated with existing users to ensure that
as an Anacostia connection to the proposed DC
new development and an open campus do not
Streetcar network , the Congress Heights Main
compromise function and security. These existing
Street and new residential development such as
assets include: the new, state-of-the-art Saint
Mathew Memorial and Sheridan Station.
Elizabeths hospital in the southeastern portion

of the site; the Districts Homeland Security
and Emergency Management Agency; and the
Office of Unified Communication housed on the
northernmost portion of the campus. Another
planned asset is the DC Water tower in the
eastern ravine. This replacement facility will rise
approximately 170 feet above grade to support a
volume of at least 2 million gallons.
Figure 1.7: Sheridan Station
Federal Coordination: Since 2006, the District has

been intensely coordinating the redevelopment
of Saint Elizabeths with the GSA and DHS. This
effort has focused on land use and transportation
planning issues related to the DHS consolidation.
In 2008, it became clear that the square footage
for the consolidation on the West Campus was
too intensive for that fragile historic site, so the
District engaged in discussions with the federal
Linkage to Neighborhood Investments: To
government to locate the Federal Emergency
ensure that the East Campus is not developed in
Management Agency (FEMA) on the East
a vacuum, careful consideration is given to the
Campus. The subsequent federal planning for this
many other development initiatives in Anacostia
facility and the Districts master plan have been
and Congress Heights neighborhoods that are
closely coordinated to ensure that the physical
planned or underway. This holistic approach
development of the site is supportive of the
ensures the campus development complements
Districts redevelopment goals.
and leverages key assets and investments, such
15
2008 F r a m e w o r k
Principles
future redevelopment of the site that corresponded to

eight guiding principles (see text box):
The Framework Plan also outlines the parameters
Capture the unique identity to create a sense

of place.
Reinvigorate the campus as an important

neighborhood center.
maximum building heights, and development intensity.
Preserve and celebrate heritage resources.
Embody the Districts urban design and

sustainability goals.
Comprehensive Plan, as amended in 2011 and solidified
Create a strong public realm.
Improve community connectivity and open up

access to the campus.
Enhance multi-modal transportation

networks.
at Saint Elizabeths.
Support wider economic development

initiatives.
key requirements of the Plan and prepare the site
of future development in terms of general land uses,

Its standards were incorporated in the Districts
the Districts guiding policies for the site.
The Framework Plan is broad and aspirational in order
to guide future planning and development activities
Additional master planning
efforts were always anticipated in order to complete

for development. Accordingly, in 2011, the District
undertook master planning, infrastructure planning,
and site entitlement processes, with the Framework
The Need for a Master

Plan
plan serving as a foundation, specific goals of the
Planning for Saint Elizabeths has been underway
Identifying a market-based, implementable
for more than a decade. Longtime residents and
development program that realizes the economic
stakeholders have patiently contributed their ideas to
development objectives of the city, while enabling
a host of planners, consultants and city officials who
the preservation of historic assets and character
initiated the early planning efforts for the campus. The
of the site;
District reached a significant milestone in 2008 with the

completion of the Saint Elizabeths East Redevelopment
Framework Plan and its approval by the DC Council.
This Plan was the culmination of previous efforts
and the first steps toward implementation of real
improvements on the campus. It set out a vision for the
16
Master Plan include:
Establishing a diverse mix of land uses and

development densities that will support the
vision of a vibrant, mixed use development that
implement two key objectives:
INTRODUCTION
Anchoring the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue

retail corridor and activating the edges of
the campus with neighborhood-serving
amenities;
Accommodating uses that support the

Districts emerging innovation economy tied
to national security industries;
Ensuring the plan promotes a unique sense of

place rooted in the reuse of historic buildings and
retention of the original campus character;
Designing a complimentary public realm and

street network that reinforces placemaking
principles and creates destinations that link to the
surrounding community and the West Campus ;
Cultivating a comprehensive sustainability
Figure 1.8: 2008 Framework Plan Illustrative 1
approach that informs the master planning

process and leads to innovative solutions for the
site; and
Crafting design guidelines that supply the ground

rules for future development and provide the
flexibility to respond to changing times.
The goals formed the backbone of the planning

process that was the result of collaboration between
diverse groups of stakeholders. The resulting Master
Plan seeks to balance these goals by providing both
site wide principles and specific design guidelines for
development parcels.
Figure 1.9: 2008 Framework Plan Illustrative 2
17
2011 M a s t e r P l a n n i n g
Process
Creating the Master Plan followed a collaborative
brought a an expertise that will ensure the realization
process that included extensive engagement with
and success of the vision contained in this document.
Ward 8 residents, historic preservation community,

federal partners, private sector, and local and regional
stakeholders. The District worked closely with Ward
8 Councilmember Marion Barry and his staff on all
aspects of the planning process who offered guidance,
support, and access to their community leaders that
have been invaluable to shaping the vision for the East
Stakeholder engagement was undertaken jointly with

the District Department of Transportation so that
stakeholders could provide guidance on both the
Master Plan and the Environmental Assessment for
the East Campus Transportation Network. Collectively,
these events provided the stakeholders with multiple
Campus.
platforms for engaging with the team during the three
Because of the size and impact of the development
exploration of alternatives, and development of the
of the East Campus, the planning process included
final plan.
the entire city in its conception of stakeholders.

Accordingly, Mayor Gray appointed a Saint Elizabeths
Redevelopment Initiative Advisory Board, composed
of national civic, political, educational and business
leaders. Since its inception, the Board has offered
feedback and advice to the planning process and has
phases of the plan development process: analysis,
During the analysis phase, the planning team acquired

an understanding of the site context and constraints,
with community members providing insight into
neighborhood priorities. Throughout this stage there
was continual engagement with both community and
Sta k e h o l d e r E n g a g e m e n t T i m e l i n e
18
September 9, 2011 - Mayors Advisory Meeting One
September 27, 2011 - Consulting Party Four
October 4, 2011 - Mayors Advisory Meeting Two
October 19, 2011 - Saint Elizabeths Community

Advisory Group
October 25, 2011 - Consulting Party Five
October 26, 2011 - Mayors Advisory Meeting Three
October 27, 2011 - Public Meeting Three
July 14, 2011 - Public Meeting Two
November 9, 2011 - Mayors Advisory Meeting Four
July 19, 2011 - Consulting Party Two
December 13, 2011 - Consulting Party Six
August 5, 2011 - Consultant Party Walking Tour
February 29, 2012 - Consulting Party Seven
August 16, 2011 - Consulting Party Three
May 4, 2011 - Saint Elizabeths Community Advisory

Group
May 12, 2011 - Public Meeting One
June 2, 2011 - Public Walking Tour
June 6, 2011 - Saint Elizabeths Community Advisory

Group
June 27, 2011 - Consulting Party One
July 6, 2011 - Saint Elizabeths Community Advisory

Group
INTRODUCTION
historic preservation stakeholders to provide guidance

on plan approaches, priorities, and requirements.
The team held a series of meetings, workshops and
walking tours to develop a community vision for
the East Campus. The District also formed the Saint
Elizabeths Community Advisory Group to provide more
detailed guidance during the planning process. Please
refer to Appendix E for a complete list of Stakeholer
participation.
Based on this input, the team developed two
equally viable schemes addressing the same issues
-- transportation, open space and new development
-- on the site. The community and stakeholder groups
then evaluated how well each scheme achieved the
Framework Plans eight development principles.
The strengths from each scheme were combined to
create the final Master Plan concept, which was again
presented to the community for public comment. This
work became the foundation for the Master Plan and
Design Guideline document .
In a parallel effort throughout the planning process,
Figure 1.10: Three public meetings were conducted during

the development of the East Campus Master Plan in order to
receive community feedback.
the District also led a structured historic preservation

consultation process that influenced the Master Plan
resolve potential adverse effects through avoidance,
and associated transportation actions. To ensure
minimization or mitigation in an unified campus plan.
that the submitted Master Plan is consistent with the
More detailed information no the consultation process
Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment
can be found in Appendix D.
of Historic Properties and the historic covenants

contained in the Deed, the city initiated consultation
with stakeholders (including the DC SHPO and the
ACHP) early in the process and has conducted six
formal consultation meetings. The purpose of the
consultation was to identify historic resources; identify
As a product of this processes, the East Campus Master

Plan provides all stakeholders with a vision of what
their community can achieve, as well as a standard by
which all future development proposals for the East
Campus can be evaluated.
and assess potential effects on historic properties; and
19
A p p ly i n g t h e M a s t e r
Plan
The Master Plan and corresponding design guidelines
For the City:
comprise recommendations for future development
For city staff and public officials, this document forms
that address significant planning and development. This
the basis for the text to establish zoning on the site.
document provides the community and stakeholders
Furthermore, the Master Plan, in combination with
with a refined vision and a guiding framework for
the subsequent zoning, will be used to shape the
future development on the East Campus, with a special
development solicitation and disposition process, as
focus on urban design, building form, and height, land
future projects are evaluated for consistency with the
use, public open space, environmental sustainability,
Master Plan. The Plan also lays out the next steps for
energy use, and other key attributes of the built
additional infrastructure, utility and environmental
environment and public realm. Its principal objective is
coordination for the implementation phase of the
to steer future development so it is consistent with this
project. Finally, the Plan will be used by project approval
preferred vision of the final Master Plan.
bodies, such as the Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning
The Master Plan guidelines will help shape the

development by establishing careful and coherent
design direction for building forms and public spaces
Adjustment, and the Historic Preservation Review

Board, as guidance for evaluating future development
on the East Campus.
while recognizing the need for flexible parameters

relative to building use and density. This greater
emphasis on physical form is intended to produce safe,
attractive and enjoyable public spaces supportive of
mixed-use development. The guidelines present simple,
clear graphic representations for height and siting of
building elements to address the basic necessities of
safe and pedestrian friendly streets and public spaces.
The document is intended to be a resource and tool for
the multiple parties that will play a role in the eventual
development of the campus.
20
For the Community:

This Master Plan articulates the communitys desires
for the future of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
and documents the results of extensive participation
fruition. The Master Plan will be used as a resource
for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC),
specifically ANC 8C, and other stakeholders to assess
specific development proposals for the East Campus
for future building projects in Ward 8 and in the City.
INTRODUCTION
For the Development Community:

The Plan outlines the citys vision and expectations for
future building on the East Campus. Set forth in the
document are standards for allowable development
in various areas of the site. These recommendations
include Architectural and Design Guidelines addressing
the various sectors of the campus as well as specific
parcels within the site. They extend from the public
realm to acceptable building massing, architectural
styles, and materials. These recommendations are
intended to provide the basis of developers proposals
for buildings and other improvements on the site.
This chapter has provided an overview of the purpose
and goals of the Master Plan, as well as the outline
of the planning process. Chapter Two describes the
vision for the redevelopment, design character, and
major components of the Master Plan. Chapter Three
focuses on the architectural design of the East Campus
to set forth the massing and character of the buildings.
Chapter Three also breaks the campus into a series
of sectors and provides specific design principles
and guidelines to shape the development within that
Figure 1.11: Public site tours were conducted to introduce the

East Campus to the community.
area. Lastly, Chapter Four describes the anticipated

next steps and implementation recommendations
for the campus. The document ends with a glossary
of terms as well as an appendix of background studies
supporting the Master Plan.
21
22
2: Master Plan
comm
DC/DHS
un ity
vie w s
&
e reside n t
or
d
o
ho
ea
d
en r e evel
op
t s
ia
sp
in
el
sp
iza
be
i t a ths
l
it
s
n d
e
trrai e n t ent
o
pm
l e i d e me nt
o
l
dev e
dg n
e
g
d
e t ial
e
ial
t
n
e
d
resi
Figure 2.1: Master Plan Descriptive Concept
24
id
i al
int
OD
m
ain Con
str gress
ee
t He i ghts
an ch
sid
sa
ho
hub
re
natu r
farm
MASTER PLAN
Chapter 2: Master Plan
Master Plan Intent

The Saint Elizabeths East Master Plan will guide the city, the community, and the private sector in the revitalization
of this National Historic Landmark by providing detailed development goals and design principles to shape future
development and historic preservation. The Master Plan intends to create a framework that renews historic and
cultural resources on the campus while ensuring that new development creates dynamic urban places that reflect
innovative, sustainable design solutions. To accomplish this, the Master Plan carefully balances preservation goals
with a market-responsive development approach; this is critical to ensure that the resources generated from private
sector development can be reinvested into the renewal of the campuss infrastructure and historic resources.
Master Plan also links to parallel economic development planning efforts to ensure thoughtful placement of uses
and programs that stimulate the citys burgeoning innovation economy tied to national security industries. The
result of these intentions is a Master Plan that knits together the unique historic campus with the Congress Heights
neighborhood, to create a destination for both current and future residents to live, work, shop, play, and learn.
M a s t e r P l a n Ov e r v i e w
Achieving this vision of revitalization and renewal requires thoughtful consideration of placemaking components
to guide the plans urban design, development, and historic preservation approaches. For example, the provision
of neighborhood-serving retail amenities was a strong desire and important plan objective for Congress Heights
neighbors and Ward 8 residents. Thus, an important goal of the Master Plan became to focus development at two
25
Places: Neighborhood Anchors

Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE
MLK Neighborhood Center

The Master Plan aims to integrate the Saint Elizabeths
Farm
Complex
East Campus into the surrounding community and

provide much needed services and amenities for the
residents of the Ward. This objective will be reached on
the western side of the campus with a neighborhood
center and ground-level retail within the new buildings
Neighborhood
Center
fronting Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. The shops
Maple
Quad
and restaurants in these locations will complement

the existing businesses along the Congress Heights
Transit
Center
Main Street and extend the retail corridor to the East

Campus. This sector also includes the reuse of Building
et
tre
tS
ea
Gr
100 as a center for innovation and entrepreneurship.
CT Village
The center should be programmed with a wide range

of community uses designed to support individuals
Alabama
Ave, SE
Figure 2.2: An early concept for the Master Plan linking

a neighborhood center and a transit center with a great
street for walking.
and businesses from the area that are interested in the

innovation and national security industries. This sector
also features several public plazas and open spaces
that should be programmed with public art and street
activating uses to ensure vibrant street life along both
Dogwood Street and MLK Jr. Avenue.
neighborhood centers that deliver goods and services

within close proximity for area residents, while also
Congress Heights Transit Center
becoming destinations for the Ward. In this spirit, there
The gateway to the East Campus from the Congress
are three main placemaking themes that form the basis
Heights Metrorail station is envisioned as a vibrant,
of the master plan: places, paths, and connections.
mixed-use neighborhood center. New structures will
The themes works together to create a unified sense of
offer ground-floor retail and restaurants, and offices
place and are the organizing principles of the plan itself;
and apartments on the higher floors. Wide sidewalks,
individually they will also create distinct destinations as
caf seating, fountains, outdoor entertainment, unique
the site is developed over time. The following section
architecture and a diverse offering of local and national
discusses the goals and aspirations of each theme that
retailers are recommended for the development to
link to the planning and design recommendations in
ensure energetic street life and 24/7 activity. The
the remainder of the Master Plan chapter.
District is also coordinating with the Washington Metro

Area Transit Authority to assess the feasibility of adding
a second entrance at the north end of the station. The
26
MASTER PLAN
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
Farm
Complex
Sector
Magnolia St.
Water Tower
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE
FEMA Site
13th
Street
Sector
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
Maple
Quadrangle
Sector
Cypress St.
Campus
Intersection
Sector
MLK Neighborhood
Center Sector
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
CT
Village
Sector
Congress Heights
Metro Sector
e.,
ma Av
Alaba
SE
13th St., SE
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
Figure 2.3: East Campus Sector Diagram

0 100 200
400
27
second entrance would provide direct and convenient
various Hub components to evolve over time.
access to the southern end of the Saint Elizabeths East

Campus, enhancing the pedestrian experience along
Maple Quadrangle
the proposed retail corridor along Dogwood Street,
The Maple Campus will feature the core of the
which is an overall goal of the master plan. Given the
Innovation Hubs private sector and commercial uses,
importance of this second entrance, WMATA will
such as a large-scale office space for secured tenants,
determine the feasibility of improvements to project
potential university or research institution presence,
stakeholders for review and comment. Based on that
and small-scale office space for innovation sector start
review, the program of improvements will be finalized
ups and incubators. The Maple Quadrangle will also
and then concept level plans, including concept level
be home to important support functions for the Hub
cost estimates, will be completed.
including a hotel, conference center, and retail along

MLK Jr. Avenue. The large open space in the center
of the building grouping is reminiscent of a verdant
Places: Innovation Hub

On the interior of the campus, the historic quadrangles
of the Maple and CT campuses will become an
Innovation Hub, an integrated center of research,
education, training, entrepreneurship, technology
transfer and private sector commercial activities tied to
the homeland security and national defense industries.
The hub will leverage proximity to DHS on the West
Campus and be at the core of a regional innovation
cluster for the sector. The Districts Innovation Strategy
for Saint Elizabeths seeks to expand and diversify the
citys economy by linking to business, research and
employment opportunities in the innovation sector.
The leadership and expertise of DHS on the West
Campus will create a synergy with the Innovation
Hub on the East Campus that will drive technological
advances and industry collaboration. Beyond its key
functions, the hub will also support activities such
as hotel, conference center, retail, and potentially
residential. The different sectors within the Innovation
Hub have discrete focuses, but the programming and
use mix should be flexible to allow for the phasing of
28
quadrangle on a college campus. Its grassy expanse

is framed by the largest buildings on the East Campus
to create a setting for informal exchange of ideas,
collaboration, and networking among Innovation Hub
users such as DHS program managers, researchers,
investors and local entrepreneurs. The Master Plan
recommends preserving the formal character of the
Maple Quad while enhancing its pedestrian-oriented
environment with new pathways, lighting , outdoor
furnishings, and creative programming.
Campus Intersection
The
Intersection
sector
is
the
programmatic
link between the Maple Quadrangle and the

Community Technology (CT) Village.
It should
incorporate Innovation Hub functions with a specific

focus on production, technology transfer, and
commercialization. Facilities could include small
scale production and assembly, technology testing
and evaluation center; other unique functions could
include a prototyping and proof-of-concept center,
where prototypes are assessed for market readiness.
MASTER PLAN
Places: Residential/Community
Sectors
In addition, some supportive office space to incubate
ideas and products, and a demonstration center where
companies show their products and services, are also
feasible in this location. From a planning and design
perspective, buildings located at this sector will vary
in height to transition from the higher density Maple
Quadrangle and 13th Street sectors to the lower scale,
The final two sectors of the campus are the 13th Street
spine and the Farm Complex on the North Parcel. The
13th Street sector has an advantage being at the rear of
the campus and situated on the edge of the topographic
bowl. The views from this location are expansive
and would be suitable for residential development.
The Farm Complex also has a unique and challenging
historic CT Village.
location on the campus that limits its suitability for
Community Technology (CT) Village
for the hospital there is a unique opportunity to create
new development; as the historic agricultural center
This historic quadrangle of seven buildings was formerly

known as the Continuing Treatment area during the
hospitals existence; the Master Plan recommends
linking the community and innovation themes by
changing the CT acronym to Community Technology
Village. The Innovation Hub uses in this village-like
setting should support talent development, education,
business development, and entrepreneurship. The
focus of this sector is to connect Ward 8 residents and
businesses to the innovation economy by providing
opportunities to expand education, business, and
career advancement. Specific programmatic activities
could include job training, placement and internship
coordination;
community
college
or
university
programs; small business support services and

entrepreneurship and business start-up assistance.
The original two-story buildings could become the
future home of a university or a community college,
and the large kitchen facility at the center of the quad
could be repurposed for the culinary arts. The low
density and open spaces of the sector will be preserved
to create a transition between the East Campus and the
surrounding residential community. New courtyards,
a community resource for urban agriculture that

will improve access to fresh and healthy food while
supporting the Districts growing local food movement.
13th Street
The spine of the campus, 13th Street, has the most
potential for dense new development, yet also has
challenging topography and existing Metrorail tunnels
run through various portions of the sector. The 13th
Street Sector includes areas to the east of 13th Street,
along the ravine which separates the historic East
Campus from the new hospital. As there are no historic
buildings and few roads in this area, the development
sites are relatively large, and the opportunities
relatively flexible. In addition, new development is
encouraged to promote connection to and awareness
of the ravine landscape, so that the verdant character
of the present Saint Elizabeths Campus continues to
be present along this built-up street. At the north end
of 13th Street, where new buildings since adjacent
to historic ones, particular attention should be paid
to the scale and detail of architectural relationships.
Residential uses are preferred in this location, along
plazas and pathways will help to connect new and

existing structures, and better define the sector as
distinctive campus within the larger site.
29
with a short stay hotel and ancillary ground floor retail
rich with activity. The most important path within the
at key intersections. The public ream, open spaces, and
campus is a reconstructed Dogwood Street that links
public art program will be critical in this area in order to
the two community anchors in the Master Plan - the
ensure a vibrant street life that has activity at all hours
MLK Neighborhood Center and the Congress Heights
of the day.
Metro Station. Dogwood Street is envisioned as a

vibrant, walkable promenade that brings people to and
Farm Complex
from the Metro Station and MLK Jr. Avenue. This path
The North Parcel enjoys tremendous visibility from
does not exist today and is not accessible to residents
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, but its development is
in the neighborhood; by opening up the campus and
constrained because it is disconnected from the rest of
creating this connection there is the opportunity to
the East Campus and surrounded by high security users
draw neighbors to the site and create vibrant street life
(West Campus US Department of Homeland Security,
early in the development.
East Campus site of Federal Emergency Management

Agency, and the Districts Unified Communication
Center and Homeland Security and Emergency
Management Agency). Nevertheless, the barn, stable,
and farm scale link this area directly to the agricultural
heritage of the East Campus and offer a unique
opportunity for adaptive reuse. The Master Plan
preserves this heritage by reserving the North Parcel
for urban agriculture and community uses. Agricultural
uses that could include a commercial urban farm and/
or community garden plots; several historic buildings in
the complex could be reused as in service to the garden,
for community spaces , or for creative programming.
Connections
Connecting
the
campus
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood was a fundamental principle of the

2008 Framework Plan that is further developed in this
Master Plan. The site wide principles on Circulation
and Connectivity emphasize the importance of making
connections into the campus by extending the roads
from the Congress Heights neighborhood to the south.
Connections are also created along MLK Jr. Avenue
at key intersection, which will also be reinforced by
the porous nature of the campus boundary once the
perimeter fence is removed. While physical connections
Paths
30
to DHSs headquarters on the West Campus is not

feasible because of security constraints, the Master
The proposed new road network for the East Campus
Plan intends for there to be symbolic connections
developed through the Transportation Environmental
across from the West Campuss Gate 2 and Gate 3
Assessment and the Master Plan features a series of
and along Pecan Street. At all of these gateways, the
important paths through the site that are placemaking
Master Plan recommends active public realm, public
features to themselves. The site wide design guidelines
art, creative programming, and active ground floor
for Public Realm emphasize the importance of creating
uses to signal that the campus is open and welcoming
great, walkable streets throughout the campus that are
to all.
MASTER PLAN
S i t e-W i d e P r i n cip l e s
The site-wide design principles presented within this
chapter are intended to create a cohesive and ordered
development pattern that achieves the goals of the
Master Plan as outlined in Chapter 1. Accordingly the
principles cover critical issues that are linked these
goals including historic preservation, land use and
development, circulation, the public realm, parking
and loading and sustainability. The site wide guidelines
seek to ensure that new development: enhances the
sense of place for the East Campus; ensures highquality urban design; enhances the public domain;
encourages creative placemaking;
contributes to
neighborhoods where people can live, work and shop

at Saint Elizabeths East.
The Plans site wide principles are intended to provide
guidance for developers and designers as they begin
Figure 2.4: Twenty-three historically significant buildings on

the East Campus will be Incorporated into the Master Plan.
to plan and shape the East Campus. These principles

should be considered general standards that should be
studied and followed in addition to the sector and parcel
guidelines described in Chapter 3. The application of
both site wide principles and parcel guidelines will
ensure that new development achieves the Master
Plans goal of vibrant, mixed-use development with
community-serving amenities and an Innovation Hub
for the national security industry.
to the historic designation (refer to the Site History

section in Chapter One). The remaining buildings in
the same diagram were built much later and are of a
different period of Saint Elizabeths history and also have
a much different architectural style. As a result, those
latter buildings are not deemed to be contributing to
Historic Resources
The process of understanding the East Campus began
the historic designation. The preservation and sensitive

reuse of historic resources became an essential part of
the Master Plan, even before a single line was drawn.
with a survey of its historic resources. These buildings,

structures, and landscapes are designated as part of the
The preservation of the historic East Campus and its
Saint Elizabeths Hospital National Historic Landmark
many significant resources is paramount to the success
and are protected under federal and local laws. Figure
of the sites redevelopment. The East Campus provides
2.6 identifies the historic structures which contribute
a unique opportunity to open a once closed historic

property to the community and to realize its potential
31
Building#
79
81
81A
82
83
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
BuildingName
StaffResidenceNo.8
Garage/MotorPool
Temp.HomelessShelter
DryBarn
HorseBarn
StaffResidenceNo.9
Gatehouse3
BlackburnLaboratory
RBldg
W.W.EldridgeBldg(SmithCenter)
Glenside
CharlesH.NicholsBldg
WilliamA.WhiteBldg
NBldg
IBldg
ComfortStation
97
Gatehouse4
99
100
102
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
115
116
117
119
120
121
124
125
127
129
StaffResidenceNo.6
PBldg
BehavioralStudies
CT3
CT4
CT5
CTKitchen
CT6
CT1
CT2
CT8
CT7
BartonHall
HaydonBldg
DixPavilion
Chapel
RehabilitationMedicineBldg
RefrigerationPlant
WilliamA.WhiteAnnex
EastSideSubstation
Figure 2.5: Existing Buildings on the East Campus
32
Contribution
Contributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
NonContributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
ProposedStatus
Remain
Demolished
Demolished
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Relocated
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Demolished
ProposedAction
TransportationEARoadAlignment
Contributing
Demolished
FederalGov./MLKWidening
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
Contributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
NonContributing
Relocated
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Remain
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
FederalGov./MLKWidening
MasterPlan
FederalGov./FEMA
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
FederalGov./FEMA
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
MasterPlan
TransportationEA
MASTER PLAN
UCC
82
81
Historically
Contributing Buildings
Farm
Complex
East Campus
Contributing Buildings
83
18 Building #
79
86
East Campus NonContributing Buildings
Future FEMA
Site
81A
Buildings Not
Considered for the
East Campus Historical
Survey
Martin Luther King Jr Ave.,
120
87
88
90
89
91
Maple
Quad
1902
Buildings
92
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
95
93
96
125
94
129
127
97
119
102
121
100
117
112
124
111
106
CT
Village
99
115
109
110
107
116
108
SE
a Ave.,
m
a
b
la
A
Congress Heights
Metro
Figure 2.6: Historically Contributing Buildings Diagram

0 100 200
400
33
Complex, the 1902 Buildings, the Maple Quadrangle,

and the Community Technology (CT) Village (see Figure
2.6).
The East Campus was purchased by the Saint Elizabeths
Hospital in 1869 for the expansion of its agricultural
operations (see Site History in Chapter One). The
first construction on the East Campus by the hospital
included barns and other farm buildings to house
livestock and feed, as well as cottages to house
the hospitals farm staff. Agriculture was a critical
component to the self-sufficiency of the institution and
therapeutic treatment of the hospital patients who
were employed to work the farm.
Although the hospital intended to maintain the East
Campus only for agricultural purposes, overcrowding
Figure 2.7: The Cottages on the East Campus have been
Relocated over the Years.
on the West Campus resulted in expansion of patient

facilities to the East Campus at the turn of the 20th
century. Four of the 12 buildings constructed as part of
the 1902 hospital expansion were located on the East
Campus (Buildings 89, 94, 95, and 100). These twostory, Italian Renaissance Revival-style buildings are
as a public asset. The historic buildings, structures,
referred to as the Richardson Group. The character
and landscapes that characterize the East Campus
of the 1902 development is consistent with the cottage
represent a significant part of our national and local
plan, an archetypal approach to patient housing that
history, and the implementation of the East Campus
created a home-like atmosphere through small-scale,
Master Plan will ensure that this treasure is preserved,
detached buildings set within a picturesque landscape.
revitalized, and made accessible.
In 1923, the Blackburn Laboratory (Building 88) was
As part of the Saint Elizabeths Hospital National
constructed adjacent to the 1902 Buildings, as the first
Historic Landmark (NHL) and local Historic District,
medical science building for the hospital. This building
the East Campus is protected under federal and local
reflects a significant shift in treatment philosophies
historic preservation laws and regulations, as well as
at the hospital from moral to scientific. This shift
the historic covenant contain in the Deed.
was furthered in the 1930s by the construction

of a complex of buildings known today as Maple
34
The East Campus of Saint Elizabeths Hospital consists
Quadrangle (Buildings 90, 92, and 93). The distinct scale
of four major historic building groupings: the Farm
and siting of these buildings reflects the hospitals need
MASTER PLAN
UCC
Buildings Proposed for

Demolition
82
81
18 Building Number
Building to Remain
83
Building to be Relocated
79
86
Future FEMA
Site
Buildings Proposed for

Demolition
Buildings Not Included in
the East Campus Master
Plan
81A
Martin Luther King Jr Ave.,
120
87
88
90
91
89
92
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
95
93
96
125
94
129
127
97
119
102
121
100
117
112
124
111
106
99
115
109
110
107
116
108
SE
a Ave.,
m
a
b
la
A
Congress Heights
Metro
Figure 2.8: Buildings proposed for demolition

0 100 200
400
35
Their scale and siting were more consistent with the

cottage plan of earlier buildings, but their configuration
within a formal, outward-facing oval is distinct from all
previous development at the hospital. Other buildings,
such as the Tuberculosis Building (Building 102) and
Physicians Cottage (Building 99) also represent
important periods at the East Campus, but have a
less clear relationship to the major historic periods of
development.
Today, the four primary building groupings represent
the distinct phases of Saint Elizabeths Hospital
development on the East Campus. They reflect the
evolving treatment philosophies implemented at Saint
Elizabeths in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Figure 2.9: A 1930s plan of the Maple Quad.
One of the Master Plans objectives is to preserve

these significant building groupings and maintain the
legibility of historic development on the East Campus.
to house a large population of short-term patients and
As a result, the Master Plan includes the retention and
provide a variety of clinical treatments. The buildings
adaptive use of 16 existing historic buildings along
are arranged inwardly around a formal quadrangle, a
with historic structures and landscape features. The
departure from the picturesque landscape of previous
Master Plan also seeks to maintain and celebrate the
development phases at Saint Elizabeths.
unique character of the historic buildings and provide

the opportunity for compatible new development that
Soon after the construction of the Maple Quadrangle,
continues the evolution of the campus into the 21st
the hospital constructed a second formal grouping of
century.
buildings referred to as the CT Village (Buildings 106,
36
107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, and 116). These
The design principles specifically address the treatment
buildings were intended to house chronic patients who
of the historic buildings and structures contributing to
required long-term permanent housing and treatment.
the Saint Elizabeths Hospital NHL. These guidelines
MASTER PLAN
Figure 2.10: Building 88 - Blackburn Laboratory
should be referenced during the design development
Preserve spatial relationships among and
and review of all individual projects on the East Campus
between historic buildings and their associated
and used in conjunction with the principles for new
landscapes.
architecture and urban design provided in this chapter.
features that reinforce the historic character of
Historic Resource Principles
buildings, pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
Respect the unique character of the historic
and the campus boundary.
campus and its historic resources by controlling

the massing and materials of new buildings on the
campus.
Retain, restore, and adaptively reuse historic
Preserve and restore significant landscape
Integrate new development through designs of

buildings and landscapes that are compatible with
historic structures and settings.
buildings in a manner respectful of their character.
37
Circulation and Connectivity

A critical objective of the East Campus Master Plan
is to knit together Saint Elizabeths with the existing
Congress Heights neighborhood. Currently, the street
grid found in Congress Heights ends at the boundary
of the campus. Connecting the East Campus to the
neighborhood requires extending the Congress Heights
street grid onto the campus where possible and
designing a new street network on the East Campus to
facilitate easier access to the site. The lack of a fully
developed interconnected road network is a serious
impediment to effective development on the site.
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49

USC303), implemented by 23 CFR 771.135, calls for the
protection of any publicly owned park, recreation area,
wildlife refuge, or publicly or privately owned historic
site.
Since Saint Elizabeths Hospital is a National
Historic Landmark, this project must include a Section

4(f) evaluation. Section 4(f) applies to all projects that
require approval by an agency of the U.S. Department
of Transportation, including FHWA.
A second requirement is that the project must also
comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
The existing infrastructure on the East Campus is

mostly private, old, and, generally, in poor condition.
Additionally, the current locations of the existing
infrastructure system are situated in areas of the
Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This regulation

requires the lead agency to identify historic properties
and the impact of the proposed plans on those
properties. It also stipulates a consultation process with
campus where new development is to occur.
identified parties regarding the effects the undertaking
Since the existing roads on the East Campus are
master planning team and the transportation EA team
insufficient, the DC Department of Transportation
ran a joint consultation process to ensure coordination
(DDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
between these related, yet distinctive processes. An
(FHWA)
the
overview of this process is outlined in Chapter One of
transportation network. As a first step in the process,
this document. All of the records and technical reports
an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed
associated with these processes are included within
action and its potential effects is being prepared in
the EA.
are
proposing
improvements
(or project) would have on historic properties. The
to
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA), the Council of Environmental Quality
Circulation Principles
(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the FHWAs
The EA has specific purpose and need for the
Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR
transportation network that include connecting the
771). FHWA is the lead federal agency for the project
campus to the neighborhood, improving multi-modal
and the transportation planning has been closely
transit options, and managing the expected growth
coordinated with the master planning process.
in travel demand with new development. The Master

Plan goals for the transportation network are to:
In addition to the EA, the District is required to

address two other important federal requirements
for historic sites. For FHWA projects, Section 4(f) of
38
Create a well-defined network of street rightsof-way and a recognizable block structure
MASTER PLAN
UCC
Transit Connections
Map
Pine St.
Proposed Bicycle Lane

Existing Multi-Use Trail
Magnolia St.
Possible Multi-Use Trail (not

planned)
Sidewalk
Water
Tower
Pecan St.
Existing Metro Entrance

Proposed Metro Entrance
Capital Bikeshare Station
Sycamore Dr.
Suggested Sidewalk
*
*
FEMA
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
10
ute
Min
13
th
St.
Dis
Dis
tan
ce
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
Congress Heights
Metro
* *
*
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
13th St., SE
ing
ce
te W
alk
tan
inu
Oa
kD
r.
Malcolm X Ave., SE
ing
5M
lk
Wa
Cypress St.
Figure 2.11: Transportations Connections Diagram

0 100 200
400
39
E a s t C a m p u s T r a n s p o r tat i o n N e t w o r k
This transportation alternative entails construction
of a network of urban local roadways and bicycle/

pedestrian facilities to provide a complete street
system within the East Campus. The major elements
Street to 13th Street
Metro Station
New connectivity with the Congress Heights
- Reconfiguration of Pecan Street along a new
neighborhood via connections at Malcolm X
alignment between MLK Jr. Avenue and 13th
Avenue and 8th Street
Street
40
Pecan Street and 13th Street at Congress Heights
- Extension of 13th Street northward to Pecan

Street
Reconfiguration of Sycamore Street and Dogwood

Street to create a continuous connection between
of the alternative include:
- Extension of Cypress Street from Sycamore
MASTER PLAN
Figure 2.12: East Campus and Congress Heights existing streets Figure 2.13: East Campus and Congress Heights proposed
streets
Existing Streets
Existing Campus Drives
Proposed District Streets
District Streets
District Streets
Property Line
Property Line
that respects the historic pathways on the
Utilize consistent standards for paving materials,

site lighting, and streetscape furnishings to convey
neighborhood.
a distinctive sense of place that both relates to the
Ensure the road network creates developable
Allow for an appropriately scaled public realm

with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and
integrated stormwater management facilities to
encourage street activity and meet sustainability
goals.
campus, while opening up connections to the
parcels on both sides.
Proposed Streets
Incorporate bike lanes and transit facilities, on
historic past and future opportunity.

As a result of the EA, coordination with the master
planning team, and consultation with stakeholders, a
preferred road network has emerged. This network of
new and rebuilt streets clearly defines the development
parcels within the campus and how these parcels
relate to each other and the historic buildings. This
road network coupled with the historic buildings and
landscapes created the Master Plans foundation.
selected streets, to strengthen connections

through the site and to the Metrorail station.
41
Planning and Design

Urban Design
Land Use
In order to achieve the goals of the Master Plan, future
The East Campus offers enormous potential as one of
designers should pay careful attention to the core
the few large remaining parcels in the District where
planning and urban design principles articulated in this
significant development can occur. The Comprehensive
entire section. Urban design involves the arrangement
Plan Future Land Use Map which is, based on the 2008
and design of building lots, public spaces, transportation
East Campus Framework Plan, sets the general range
systems, services and amenities within a large site.
of land uses on the site. Early in the process, several
The best urban design helps to achieve identifiable
studies were conducted to assess future demand
neighborhoods, site-specific architecture, aesthetically
for retail, residential, office, hotel, and other uses on
pleasing public places and views, identifiable landmarks
the East Campus, and assist in the development of
and focal points, and a human element established by
the Master Plan. The studies suggest that there is
compatible scales of development. Matters such as
sufficient pent-up demand for commercial, residential,
community safety, accessibility, sustainability, quality
and retail development and these uses could be built
of life and protecting campus heritage are key concerns
immediately. The demand increases significantly when
within this Master Plan and are significant elements
the needs of the forthcoming DHS complex are also
within its urban design goals. The following principles
considered. In addition, the development of the land
further advance the goals of site wide urban design the
use program was closely coordinated with the research
each increment of new development should consider:
and planning for the Districts Innovation Strategy at

Saint Elizabeths. This economic development planning
Urban Design Principles
process developed a set of proposed land use and
Design and site new development sensitively to
programmatic components that form the Innovation
preserve existing gateways, vistas, and campus
Hub on the East Campus and inform the range of land
landmarks (see Figure 3.6, 3.7).
uses proposed in Figure 2.14.
Create focal points, such as fountains, plazas,

and courtyards, to establish a sense of place and
orientation within the public realm and key open
Land Use Principles
particularly those that enhance the pedestrian
spaces.
experience and are within easily walkable areas

adjacent to major activity centers.
Activate streets with public or semi-public uses,

such as retail, on the ground floors of buildings
and provide direct entry from the street where
multiuse trails which are pleasant and safe for

pedestrians.
42
through design techniques that foster social

activity and visibility.
Develop and strengthen pedestrian connections

within the campus by designing streets and
Create a safe environment by mixing uses,

programming activities in public spaces, and
feasible (see Figure 2.15).
Support a mix of development densities,
Ensure a mix of uses is present within each sector

during each phase of development. Special
MASTER PLAN
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
Land Use Legend

Residential
Commercial/Innovation Hub
Magnolia St.
Commercial Office
Hospitality
Educational/Institutional
Water Tower
Civic /Community
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
FEMA
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.14: Proposed Allowable Land Use Diagram

0 100 200
400
43
Plan new retail in concert with establishments in

Congress Heights so those existing businesses will
be supported and enhanced, and not competed
against.
Land Use Types
Residential: Housing to include a mix of single

or multi-family housing in the form of either
apartments, duplexes, or townhomes.
Commercial/Innovation Hub: Commercial uses

to small scale office space to support start-ups,
incubators, and entrepreneurs. Also includes
unique facilities such as product assembly, testing,
and development.
Commercial Office: Commercial office space for

large users, including potentially secured or SKIFF
facilities.
SE
a Ave
Alabam
Figure 2.15: Preferred Retail Areas Diagram
needs of residents and site users, such as banks,

dry-cleaning, pharmacy, coffee shop, small
Retail Areas Legend
grocer. Does not anticipate regional serving or

destination retail.
Required Retail Areas

Retail Allowed
facility. Format would include extended stay,
Public Realm
limited service, or business class.
24/7 presence in these areas.

Assess the mix of housing options for differing
income levels, family compositions, and
accessibility requirements.
Provide varied cultural and civic facilities, and uses
for all age groups.
44
Educational Institution: Educational institution

that provide services and meet educational needs
or university housing uses that would provide
Hospitality: Commercial hotels and conference
Development Pad for New Buildings
consideration should be given to residential, hotel,
Retail: General retail to serve the day-to-day
for local community, regional, or national users.
Civic/Community: Civic/community land

uses for public or community purpose. Major
religious facilities, museums, public libraries, and
community centers fall within this category.
MASTER PLAN
Density and Building Heights

physical form proposed for the East Campus is guided
by the desire to increase density without diminishing
the lower, historic buildings already on the East
Campus. This goal governs the general placement and
massing of any new buildings within the block structure
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan guidance, the
described in this document. From the outset of the

planning process, a number of assumptions about
the development approach were explored to help
guide the design of the Master Plan. For examples,
density is needed on the East Campus to help the
District of Columbia earn revenue to pay for needed
infrastructure improvements and historic building
stabilization and rehabilitation. In addition, increasing
density on the East Campus would not only create
more opportunities for jobs, it provide opportunities
SE
a Ave
Alabam
and resources to improve the physical environment for

Congress Heights and Ward 8 neighborhoods, primarily
in the public realm. Density also needs to be mitigated
through planning and urban design decisions campus
wide, such as the planned improvements to the road
Figure 2.16: Recommended FAR Diagram
Density Zones Legend
network and increasing the quality and quantity of
Low
public open spaces.
Moderate
Medium
The physical form proposed for the East Campus

is guided by the desire to increase density without
diminishing the lower, historic buildings already on the
East Campus. This goal governs the general placement
and massing of any new buildings within the block
structure described in this document. Massing rules
were explored for their ability to yield new buildings
that work together to shape a high-quality public
realm. The methods used for controlling the placement
and massing of buildings include the following:
High/low density zones, which govern the
45
distribution of density throughout the planning

area, are based on criteria such as access to
transit, proximity to historic resources and land

use objectives;
Allowable building height is governed by the 2008

Framework Plan and the Districts Comprehensive
Plan;
Setbacks are recommended to reduce bulk and

sculpt the massing of buildings;
Architectural features include towers and building

decorations.
Under the Master Plan, density is concentrated within

a limited number of locations. Figure 2.16 identifies the
13th Street corridor within the planning area as most
ve SE
ama A
Alab
Figure 2.17: Maximum Building Height Diagram
Building Heights Legend
suitable to receive the largest share of new density for

several reasons. First these areas are located behind the
historic core of the site and significant development has
less of an impact on the existing resources; moreover
the development will be concentrated on the edge
of a ravine, so development can take advantage of
1 Story
6 Stories
the topography achieve additional density.
2 Stories
7 Stories
transportation EA has identified the ravine as a
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
potentially sensitive area for development. Therefore
5 Stories
Suggested Setback Area
The
development in the ravine should be sensitively

placed, restoring the native plant communities once
development is complete.
For the purposes of this document, standard site
plan base density refers to the maximum planned
46
MASTER PLAN
densities for a particular area.
The Master Plan
follows the guidance of the 2008 Framework Plan and

the Districts Comprehensive Plan to set maximum
building heights across the East Campus. Figure 2.17,
the Building Heights Map, depicts recommended
maximum building heights as expressed in the number
mechanism to ensure future buildings will cohesively

frame a well-defined and recognizable structure of
quality streets and open spaces, or a public realm. A
system of RBLs for the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
can be found in the Regulating Plan in Chapter 4.
of stories. As height is measured from the grade of the
In conjunction with maximum building heights,
street frontage, development along the 13th Street
tapers, setbacks, and other architectural features are
ravine may achieve additional stories below the street
integrated into the Master Plan to achieve harmonious
frontage by building into the typography. Figure 2.17
relationships among buildings. While the Design
illustrates the maximum height limits for rentable floor
Guidelines in Chapter 3 provide sector and parcel
area; modest increases in height may be allowed for
-specific guidance, the principles below apply across
architectural features or penthouses, to be determined
the site.
by future zoning for the East Campus.
Transition heights of new development down to

adjacent historic structures or the existing houses
of the Congress Heights neighborhood;
Building Massing
There are areas on the site where new development
Step back the building height as appropriate when
must sensitively address the adjacent context.
building is adjacent to a historic structure in order
Setbacks and recommended build-to lines (RBL) are
to create a gradual transition of building height.
tools that can be used to control building massing

and form. Faade setbacks can shape overall building
as canopies, recesses, niches, ornamental
massing by reducing the bulk of the building, increasing
projections, entrance bays, or other articulations
penetration of light and air, and providing opportunities
of the faade
for visual interest and architectural expression. The

architecture guidelines in chapter three discuss the
East Campus building massing in greater detail.
A recommended build-to line establishes a common
Allow for exceptions to the build-to lines such
Encourage the inclusion of courtyards, plazas,

recessed entrances, or recesses in building
elevations to break down massing.
line for building faades at the edge of a street or an

open space. Collectively, the proposed RBLs provide a
47
Public Realm
The Master Plan envisions a diverse, vibrant, and
can be provided; and features such as ice skating rinks,
pedestrian-friendly public realm, with well-defined
game boards, interactive fountains, and movable
streets and high-quality open spaces. The public realm
seating can be incorporated to promote the plaza as a
within the East Campus will consist of three principal
destination.
elements: the street network, public open spaces

(quads, squares, and parks), and public art. These
elements are defined and framed along their edges by
the building faades.
Figure 2.15 shows the network of retail frontages. It

distinguishes those frontages required to provide retail
versus those where retail or other street-activating
uses are encouraged. The basis of this approach is to
identify the priority areas for ground-floor storefronts
Street Frontage
The pedestrian experience is completely shaped by
supported by market demand.
the character and program of the streetscape. The
Residential streets, on the other hand, are typically
zone between the roadway curb and the building face,
lower intensity environments, with landscaping often
called frontage, will incorporate a number of program
placed between the sidewalk and the building face.
elements, which will vary based on the building
Non-retail commercial frontage is generally similar to
frontage types.
retail frontage, but lacks the vitality and character of
In the Master Plan, frontage types fall into the basic

categories of retail/commercial and civic/residential
uses. The preferred urban frontage types are retail and
an active shopping area. Civic frontage can be similar

to commercial frontage, but with landscaped areas and
plazas that create engaging places for people to gather.
residential uses, and since their respective characters
In addition to retail and neighborhood street
are easily contrasted, a clear character may emerge for
frontage, this plan also identifies a third category to
each street type.
accommodate the special condition along Pecan Street
Retail street frontage is an indispensable component

of any active neighborhood. The Master Plan provides
several retail-oriented, open spaces intended as
neighborhood activity centers at MLK Avenue and
Cypress Street and at the Metrorail station. These
plazas should be intensely programmed to promote
retail experiences and social interaction. Varied
program elements can be employed to achieve the
desired effect. Caf and restaurant seating zones
can be integrated into the spaces; retail kiosks with
merchandise, food, and beverage, and other services
48
without over-prescribing an amount of retail that is not
where there will be a drop-off/pickup area for the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
West Campus employees. This portion of Pecan Street
will be mostly paved with seating and shelters to make
it comfortable for the waiting passengers. Because of
the large amount of pedestrian traffic contained in this
area, it is suggested that tree pits with low tree fences
be uses in order to protect the tree roots from soil
compaction.
Street Frontage Principles
MASTER PLAN
Focus retail into clusters at destination retail

locations; prioritize activating retail uses (general
merchandise, apparel and accessories, service,
and food and beverage establishments) over
storefronts filled with offices, professional
services, and other uses inconsistent with a
dynamic pedestrian experience.
Coordinate development of planned open spaces

on the campus with adjacent retail uses to ensure
a vibrant mix of uses that generates activity at
multiple periods during the day and evening.
Compose retail building fronts in a manner that

encourages active streetscape environments.
Incorporate lobbies, entrances, and other

elements into storefronts, while maintaining a
Figure 2.18: Retail sidewalks have wide paving areas to

accommodate outdoor seating and pedestrian movement.
predominantly retail character.
Retain or implement these design

recommendations even in high security environs;
trees, landscaping and hardened street furniture
are preferred over barriers and bollards.
Public Sidewalks
A sidewalk describes the configuration of the sidewalk,
landscaping, and street furnishings in the area between
the street curb and the build-to line.
Sidewalk Components
The components of the public sidewalks are labeled in
the illustrations that follow, indicating:
Sidewalk Clear Zone: This area is intended to

provide unobstructed passage for pedestrians
along a sidewalk. The provided range of
dimensions is based on the overall sidewalk width
Figure 2.19: Residential sidewalks tend to be narrower than

retail sidewalks and allow for trees and plantings.
49
and frontage type.
special paving, untreated poured concrete, or
Street Tree and Furnishing Zone: This zone is
some combination of these surfaces. However, for
immediately adjacent to the curb and is defined
the portion of the sidewalk comprising the Clear
primarily by street trees contained in tree pits
Zone, the treatment shall be concrete or stamped
or planting strips; it may include furnishings,
concrete. Additionally, the choice and installation
such as lampposts, benches, trash receptacles,
of paving materials must comply with Americans
planters, and similar street furnishings. On some
with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
commercial frontages, this area may be integrated

into a caf zone, described below.
tree. It is important to restrict pedestrian foot
frontages. In addition to caf seating in front of
traffic from soil compaction around the tree. Tree
restaurants and cafs, this realm can be used for
pits can be protected with low fencing around
outdoor retail display and other retail-related
their perimeter where heavy pedestrian traffic is
activities. In the absence of such uses, the zone
expected. A trees viability and vitality is directly
can be furnished with benches, planters, and
correlated to the volume of soil in which its tree
other items consistent with a retail environment.
roots can seek water and nutrients. Consider
It may be located adjacent to the building
expanding the soil volume for each tree by
frontage or integrated with the Street Tree and
utilizing techniques such as Silva Cells and porous
Furnishing Zone, in which case the Caf/Shy Zone
pavement over engineered soil.
should be no less than the required width of the
Tree Pits: These recesses should be large enough

to allow water and air to enter the roots of the
Caf/Shy Zone: This area only occurs on retail
Street Tree and Furnishing Zone. The position
Paving Materials: Paved surfaces may consist of
Tree Pit Landscaping: Vegetation may include
of the Caf/Shy Zone should be the same for all
flowering plants and shrubs, but no plants with
businesses along a block frontage.
thorns or other sharp protrusions. Plants should

be maintained below a height of 30 inches for
Non-Retail Street Shy Zone: This zone only occurs
safety and visibility.
on non-retail frontages and is intended primarily

as a landscape buffer between the building face
Continuous Planting Strip: Should be used on
and the sidewalk. Landscaping elements may
frontages with lower intensity of uses and where
include yards, raised planters, and continuous
there is no adjacent on-street parking. Other
planting beds.
components of the public sidewalk frontage are

the same regardless of sidewalk width or frontage
Sidewalk Material Standards
type. They include the following:
All street furniture standards for the East Campus

will comply with the Districts Public Realm Design
Manual, DDOT standards, or any approved standard
which subsequently replaces this document.
Tree Spacing: 40 feet on center is typical.
Light Fixture Spacing: To meet the Districts

lighting standards, the fixtures generally should be
centered between trees.
50
MASTER PLAN
Furniture Zone
Pedestrian Zone
Caf Zone
Special Paving
General Paving
Specialty Paving
Trees/LID
Clear Area for

Movement
Tables/Chairs
Parking Meters/
Newspaper
Corrals
Trash Cans
Planters
Benches
Bike Racks
Bike Racks/
Benches
Lighting/
Signage/Kiosks
Figure 2.20: Sidewalk Composition - Certain furniture elements are best regulated to specific locations on the sidewalk.
51
Retail
Sycamore 1 Sycamore 2 13th Street Typical
Pecan
Redwood
Street
(FEMA
Behind the
17.5 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
8 feet
Drop-off)
10 feet
6 feet
Curb
Sidewalk
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
6 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zone
Caf/Shy Zone 8 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Clear Zone
Street Tree
and Furnishing
Preferred
Brick,
Brick,
Brick,
Brick,
Brick,
Brick,
Brick,
Paving
Pavers,
Pavers,
Pavers,
Pavers,
Pavers,
Pavers,
Pavers,
Materials
Tree Pit Size/
Stone
5 ft x 8 ft
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
6 feet wide 6 feet wide 5 feet wide 6 feet wide 5 ft x 8 ft
Stone
4 feet wide
Width
Tree
Tree Pit
Planting
Planting
Planting
Planting
Tree Pit
Planting
Treatment
with Tree
Strip
Strip
Strip
Strip
with Flush
Strip
Tree Pit
Fence
Low
Lawn
Landscaping
Plantings
Tree Spacing
Tree Strip
Lawn
Lawn
Lawn
Lawn
Tree Grate
NA
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
40 feet
Stormwater
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention
Strategy
under Tree
under Tree
under Tree
under Tree
under Tree
under Tree
under Tree
Figure 2.21: Sidewalk Types Table
52
MASTER PLAN
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
LEGEND
Farm
Complex
Retail St. Sidewalk

Sycamore T1 Sidewalk
Sycamore T2 Sidewalk
Magnolia St.
13th St. Sidewalk

Typical Sidewalk
FEMA Sidewalk
Water Tower
Redwood St. Sidewalk
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
FEMA
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e.,
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
SE
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.22: Sidewalk Types Diagram

0 100 200
400
53
6 Free Zone
Figure 2.23A: Sidewalk Section
54
8 Caf Zone
10 Sidewalk
Figure 2.23B: Sidewalk Section
B.T.L.
R.O.W.
R.O.W.
6 Tree
Landscape
6 Tree
Sycamore Street Type 1
B.T.L.
R.O.W.
Retail Street Sidewalk
MASTER PLAN
6 Tree
10 Sidewalk
B.T.L.
R.O.W.
Sycamore Street Type 2
Landscape in front of Historic Buildings (Varies)
Figure 2.23C: Sidewalk Section
55
5 Tree
10 Sidewalk
Figure 2.23D: Sidewalk Section
56
Landscape
6 Tree
8 Sidewalk
Figure 2.23E: Sidewalk Section
B.T.L.
R.O.W.
Typical Neighborhood
Sidewalk
B.T.L.
R.O.W.
13th Street Corridor
Landscape
(Varies)
MASTER PLAN
R.O.W. (Varies)
FEMA Fence Property
B.T.L.
Redwood Street
R.O.W.
Pecan St. at FEMA Drop-off
6 Tree
10 Sidewalk
Figure 2.23F: Sidewalk Section
4 Tree
6 Free Zone
Landscape
Figure 2.23G: Sidewalk Section
57
Open Space
Public open spaces in urban areas assume many forms,
Distinguish effectively between private and public
such as plazas, parks, squares, and greenways. These
spaces by reinforcing a strong sense of openness
spaces can differ substantially in type, particularly with
and accessibility in those spaces planned for
respect to programming, character, size, landscaping,
public use.
and uses. When planned as a system, public open spaces

should provide a range of activities and programming
landscape features, using a blend of plant species
to meet the needs and interests of the community. A
found on the site and new types of vegetation.
well-designed system will appeal to people of all ages

and encourage social gatherings.
access to the street; office plazas, landscaped
high quality public open spaces that will contribute
medians, and landscaped street setbacks are less
significantly to the quality of life in Congress Heights as

calls for the creation of a linear network of open spaces
desirable.
and programmed uses.
of the campus. This network consists of street-facing

all.
Encourage and expand opportunities for festivals,

concerts, farmers markets, and other activating
that is connected visually through the historic core

parks and plazas that are fully public and accessible to
Locate more usable spaces, such as retail plazas,

civic parks, and recreational parks, with direct
The intent of the Master Plan is to create well-designed,
the East Campus grows in the future. The Master Plan
Provide new development areas with high-quality
Special art features could be incorporated into the

landscape and architecture of the parks on the
East Campus. Artistic lighting should highlight the
The Master Plan focuses on improving the quality
park during the evenings. Sustainable features for
and utilization of public open space, whether new
each park can include:
or proposed, by increasing accessibility, visibility,

programming, and appearance. Recommended build-
Consider using CPTED (Crime Prevention Through
to lines are also established to define the proposed
Environmental Design) principles to guide the
open spaces that will have limited flexibility in location
design of each park;
and orientation, and are illustrated to represent the

approximate demarcation between the public open
in artistic ways to educate visitors and to supply
space and sidewalk. The following principles were
power for park events;
developed to achieve the stated goals for open space

on the East Campus:
Wind turbines and/or solar panels could be used
Low Impact Design (LID) features could include

pervious paving, water filtration gardens, and
Open Space Principles
cisterns within parks and their adjacent buildings
to capture rainwater for park irrigation.
Ensure open spaces are accessible, usable, and

designed to be safe and secure.
58
Additional guidance of the design principles for
MASTER PLAN
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
Open Space Legend
Farm
Complex
Historic Landscape
Publicly Accessible Open Space
Magnolia St.
Creative Programming Priority Area

Water Tower
FEMA
MLK
Forecourt
Sycamore Dr.
Pecan St.
Maple
Quad
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
Cypress
Commons
MLK Plaza
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Community
Park 1
Oa
kD
r.
Community
Park 1
Transit
Plaza
Community
Park 2
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e.,
ma Av
Alaba
11th Street
Plaza
Congress Heights
Metro
SE
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.24: Open Space Diagram

0 100 200
400
59
and construction of the public realm throughout the

campus. It can be an effective tool for marking the
entry points into the East Campus and significant
places or structures. Key sites throughout the campus
should be prioritized as public art sites; these include
the two neighborhood centers at MLK Avenue and
the Congress Heights Metrorail station, the forecourt
within Parcel 3, the green space in front of Building 100
on Parcel 8, and the Maple Quad green space.
In addition to public art, it will be essential for public
spaces to have creative programming that activates
and draws people into the campus, especially during
the initial phases of development. These temporary or
interim uses could include a farmers market, food or
restaurant uses, pop-up retail, or recreational activities.
Public Art and Creative Programming Principles
Public art themes should explore both the historic

features of the Saint Elizabeths hospital and
the cultural heritage of the Congress Heights
community. They should be developed based on
Figure 2.25: Art programs in the District range from singular

art instillations to larger art walks.
specific open space areas is included in the Sector
the following principles:
ensures active community participation, use
Design Guidelines in Chapter Three. As the Master
of local artists, and involvement of the District
Plan is implemented, the design of the proposed
Commission of Arts and Humanities.
landscapes will be refined with continued planning

and management efforts in order to better define their
functional and spatial potential.
Initiate a campus-wide public art program that
Coordinate public art with the historic

preservation mitigation measures calling for
signage, heritage trail markers, and other public
Public Art and Creative

Programming
Public art should be an integral part of the design
realm elements to avoid duplication.
Develop creative programming and temporary

uses in coordination with community
stakeholders and organizations, such as Congress
Heights Main Street.
60
MASTER PLAN
Parking
transportation planning completed for the area
around Saint Elizabeths associated with the federal
governments action on the West Campus and the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the East Campus
transportation network. The Master Plan seeks to
balance the need to provide sufficient parking to
In the past few years there has been substantial
support development on the East Campus with the

outcomes of this analysis that note the existing and
future traffic constraints of the transportation network
in Ward 8.
The demands on the transportation
network are growing as new development, principally

the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS)
consolidation, emerges and the Ward continues to
grow. Major investment in interstate interchanges
at I-295 and the access road to the campus along
Shepherd Parkway are proposed to support the DHS
consolidation. Further, DHS has taken an aggressive
approach to managing the travel demand by capping
the number of parking spaces on site. These positive
efforts help to ensure that there is capacity within the
transportation network to support additional mixed
use development and community amenities desired
a Ave
Alabam
SE
Figure 2.26: Structured Parking Diagram
Structured Parking Areas

Permitted Structured Parking Areas
by residents at sites like Saint Elizabeths East, Barry

Farm, Poplar Point, and other locations in the Ward. In
recognition of this complex situation, the Master Plan
makes the following parking recommendations:
Parking Target: Given current assumptions,

parking on the East Campus should be targeted
at 4,800 parking spaces in above or below
ground garages. This target does not include any
parking associated with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, existing surface parking
lots, historic structures, and any facilities
associated with existing DC government or
61
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority
(TDM): Development proposals should employ
facilities.
rigorous TDM policies for in the short and
Phased Approach: Market driven parking counts
long term. TDM measures are outlined in the
are supported in the initial phases of development
Transportation Environmental Assessment and
due to the emerging market conditions that may
include transit subsidies for workers, car sharing
make attracting tenants challenging without
programs, and bicycling facilities.
sufficient parking.
On Street Parking Opportunity: The sites new

roads could create up to 750 new on street
parking spaces at full build out, which should be
considered in developing a parking strategy for
each development site, especially where ground
floor retail is located and on street parking can
meet the parking needs associated with brief
retail trips.
Shared Parking: Shared parking is encouraged

wherever it is feasible to maximize efficiency
within each development pad/garage site.
Consideration should be given to a management
structure of shared parking system.
62
Transportation Demand Management Strategies
Structured Parking: parking should be provided

primarily in below-grade or in above-grade
wrapped parking structures. Generally, below
grade structured parking is the preferred
treatment for any new off-street parking
associated with development. Above ground
parking structures should be wrapped with
buildings so that streets are framed with active
uses and garaged are screened.
MASTER PLAN
Service and Loading

In order to preserve the vibrant street life and historic
entrances and garage doors on or near important
streets. Ideally, these elements would be located on
alleys or on other centralized courts or areas within
the block where consolidated service and loading is
provided for a building or multiple buildings.
character of the campus, the Master Plan limits service
Where circumstances do not permit such access to

an alley or consolidated area, Figure 2.27 identifies
segments of street frontage within the Master Plan
where these functions would be encouraged.
Parking & Loading Principles
Prioritize below-grade parking and ensure abovegrade parking is lined with spaces for active uses
or treated with enhanced architectural faades on
public streets, or in instances where the garage
a Ave
Alabam
faade can be viewed from a major street.
Discourage loading and service entrances along

Dogwood Street, 13th Street, MLK Avenue, and
along the CT Village oval.
SE
Figure 2.27: Parcel Access Diagram
Loading and Parking Access
Minimize the width of service or garage entrances
Preferred Loading and Parking Access
on street frontages and make use of architectural
treatments, such as specialty doors and gates, to
Public Realm
mitigate the visual impact.
Locate access points requiring a curb cut a

sufficient distance from any street intersection
so as not to disrupt traffic flow and to minimize
potential conflicts with bus stops, Metrorail
stations, and other public transit networks.
63
The Environment and

S u s ta i n a b i l i t y
Sustainable Vision for the East
Campus
As our city and region continues to change over the
principles have been developed for the East Campus
next decade, development at Saint Elizabeths can
to provide guidance for development that is healthy,
lead the way in creating our sustainable future city.
environmentally sound, and enhance neighborhood
The basic goals of sustainable design are to reduce
quality. The result of these principles will create a strong
consumption of non-renewable resources, minimize
sense of community, high quality of life for residents
waste, and create healthy, productive environments.
of all ages and abilities by providing a healthy and
Walkable neighborhoods, community parks and
environmentally safe neighborhood and public spaces.
amenities, housing choices, jobs close to homes, and
This framework sets a high-level vision for this Master
multiple transportation alternatives will contribute to
Plan to achieve both the desires of the community
the sustainability of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
and stakeholders, while upholding the sustainability
Master Plan.
standards of the District. The Sustainability Framework

highlights opportunities across six themes as follows:
In addition to these assets, sustainable development

on the campus will be achieved by applying low impact
development (LID) techniques to new development,
designing resource-efficient infrastructure systems,
selecting
energy
efficient
materials
for
new
construction, and concentrating compatible land uses

so they are multi-modal and pedestrian-friendly. The
East Campus will facilitate a number of sustainability
principles such as providing an active mix of compact
live, work, and play programs in close proximity to
Infrastructure
Energy Use and Generation
Water Use and Reuse
Materials and Waste
Habitat and Biodiversity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
enhance neighborhood quality, convenience, and

health. These opportunities will create landscapes and
ecosystems that are restorative, visually appealing, and
enhance community character, while being accessible
and ecologically sound.
Sustainability Principles: A Framework for Decision
Making
Based on research and best practices, sustainability
64
Infrastructure
The site-wide design principles presented within
this section are intended to create a cohesive and
ordered building pattern at Saint Elizabeths East
Campus. Existing and future residents expect that
current planning and redevelopment will provide
environmentally positive amenities and services that
reinforce the range of desirable activities located in
MASTER PLAN
other parts of the City. Each individual project is a part

of the Master Plan, and as such, should contribute to
the assets of this community as a whole.
Site-wide Infrastructure Principles
Develop infrastructure systems to maximize the

efficient use of utilities and resources.
Ensure new and renovated infrastructure

maximizes energy efficiency while enhancing
opportunities for the use of renewable energy
sources.
Reduce stormwater run-off through low-impact

development principles and techniques that
enhance the green and open space of the campus.
Develop buildings in close proximity to existing

infrastructure with adequate capacity to
accommodate these new projects.
Treat each individual project as a part of a whole,

so the East Campus contributes to the quality of
the surrounding community as a whole.
Energy Use and Generation
Figure 2.28: Bike lanes and farmers markets adds to an

improved quality of life for District residents.
Mixed-use development on the East Campus will

require abundant energy to heat, cool, and power the
numerous buildings. However, by taking advantage of
centralized systems and renewable technologies, this
energy demand can be reduced, energy efficiency
can be improved, and any potential contribution to
65
District Energy and Cooling

District energy and cooling are a system for distributing
heat and cooling to multiple buildings at the local
neighborhood scale. Given the District of Columbia is
served by relatively fossil-fuel-intensive grid electricity,
onsite power generation, even using natural gas, can
help offset a significant quantity of greenhouse gas
emissions. The inconsistent (or peaky) loads that
occur in the morning and evening hours must be
balanced with strong daytime loads (for example,
commercial, retail, or hotel uses) to create a more
consistent load, thereby enabling much greater
Figure 2.29: Eight Framework opportunities for new
development on the East Campus.
efficiency for the central plant.

Energy Principles
climate change can be mitigated. The campuss large
retrofit existing buildings to meet the LEED Silver
scale and diversity of uses provide many opportunities
rating greater to reduce the amount of energy
to apply sustainable practices to reduce the need for
needed for heating and cooling.
environmentally damaging fossil fuels. The energy

principles seek to reduce energy demand, improve
energy efficiency, create sustainable energy supply and
and/or retail spaces are added to the campus.

A cogeneration plant, used to produce both
Energy in Buildings
heat and electricity, should be analyzed for its
All buildings, including renovation of existing structures,
economic viability to meet the total heating
will be designed to achieve high levels of energy
demand of buildings in subsequent development
efficiency and meet the equivalent of the US Green

Building specific strategies will be integrated at the time
phases.
photovoltaic systems, biofuel-based electrical
source heat pumps and passive design strategies. The
systems, wind energy).
campus also provides opportunities for integrating

water and photovoltaics for electricity. The economics
promote the use of clean energy.
the time of building design, but all buildings should be

they become economically viable.
In non-critical areas, lighting should integrate

photovoltaics to reduce cabling requirements and
of these technologies should be closely examined at

designed to accommodate these technologies when
Encourage the use of on-site renewable energy

generation for local use (e.g., solar thermal,
of design, but the site offers opportunities for ground
renewable energy, specifically, solar thermal for hot
Consider a central power plant when a hotel

or conference center and commercial office
mitigate contribution to climate change.
Building Councils LEED Silver standard or greater.
Plan and design energy-efficient buildings and
Reduce the energy required for water movement

using gravity, low-powered motors, and solar
power.
66
MASTER PLAN
Water Use and Reuse

The District recognizes the importance of water
as a resource for the city and the need to manage
stormwater to minimize pollution, flooding and
preserve the integrity of natural systems. One of the
challenges of redeveloping the East Campus to provide
a robust water supply to sustain the community, reduce
potable water demand, and treat stormwater on the
site. The Master Plan recommends implementing
LID infrastructure to absorb and manage stormwater
runoff from the campus through filtration and recharge
areas. The water principles seek to provide a robust
water supply to sustain the community, reduce potable
water demand and treat stormwater on-site.
Water Supply and Treatment
Figure 2.30: Example of rainwater harvesting system (photo

credit: RainHarvest Systems).
Implementing conservation measures throughout

the East Campus will greatly reduce demand on the
potable water supply. These strategies should include
installing efficient fixtures and appliances based on
Water Conservation and Treatment Principles:
EPA Water Sense and Energy Star standards, and using
Drip irrigation systems and native plantings
graywater -- reclaimed water from rain harvesting,
requiring little moisture should be used to reduce
bathing, laundering and other activities -- for toilets
water demands for parks and landscaped areas.
and urinals. Rainwater collection and treatment is a

relatively low-tech, parcel-level method of offsetting
accurate metering should be used to reduce
potable water use.

In Washington, systems taking advantage of graywater
Infrastructure leak-detection technology and

overall water consumption.
Low water flow fixtures and appliances should be
must comply with the provisions of the applicable
used in infrastructure and within tenant occupied
DC building code. As of March 2013, this code will
spaces.
incorporate new standards for filtering and disinfecting

such reclaimed water (it is anticipated that the new
stormwater regulations will provide guidance on
rainwater reuse).
Explore the feasibility of using rainwater

harvesting for non-potable water uses such as
irrigation or toilets. The economics of rainwater
harvesting vary by use types, and should be
examined on a building by building basis.
67
regulations and their design implications on the

stormwater management alternatives proposed for
the East Campus.
Stormwater Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
put into place the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System Permit (MS4) for Washington, DC, which will
be effective from October 2011 to October 2016. The
new standards will require future developments, and
substantial existing building retrofits that disturb land
greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet to provide
Figure 2.31: Tree pits can be designed to collect stormwater.
onsite retention of 1.2 inches of stormwater from a

24-hour storm through the use of evapotranspiration,
infiltration, and/or rainwater harvesting. Offsite
Stormwater
The East Campus is located in the Anacostia Watershed,
which is one of the most polluted sub-watersheds
within the greater Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As the
urban water cycle continues to alter the quality of our
aquatic ecosystems and increase the risk of flooding
in the built environment, stormwater management
practices such as low-impact development, BMPs,
and green infrastructure have emerged. Providing a
sustainable stormwater management plan within the
redeveloped campus is an important strategy in this
context. Stormwater standards continue to evolve in
response to low impact development (LID) techniques
and green infrastructure, and the District of Columbia
is developing pioneering regulations that shift the
impact on future land development to locally manage
stormwater. This section reviews the proposed new
68
mitigation and/or a fee-in-lieu program will be used

when sites are unable to meet the retention standard.
The proposed 1.2-inch requirement was assumed for
all aspects of the East Campus redevelopment.
Stormwater Quantity
The stormwater regulations require that the peak
stormwater discharge rate from the 2-year and
15-year storm events must be controlled to the
pre-development rate, which refers to a meadow
condition, prior to mans influence. The requirement
is intended to ensure adequate capacity for stormwater
conveyance systems and prevent flooding of properties
downstream of the development. The Campus will
discharge stormwater runoff into the adjacent ravine,
and stormwater will then flow into the Suitland Parkway
drainage system and outfall into the Anacostia River.
MASTER PLAN
A variety of stormwater design guidelines can be

implemented to meet the new DC stormwater
regulations cost effectively. They are intended to be
flexible and can be adjusted as the new stormwater
regulations and their associated credit programs are
refined.
Stormwater Principles
The East Campus is unsuitable for typical

infiltration practices because of its clay soils, but
bioretention and LID methods should be applied
on a limited basis to meet the citys new retention
standard. Bioretention facilities with under drains
Figure 2.32: Biofiltration system near the Navy Yard.
should be installed in some public spaces to meet
the threshold of the retention requirement.
Materials and Waste
Decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on
Waste is becoming an increasingly important issue
the campus, and use green roofs to reduce the
for cities to manage more efficiently. City waste is
volume of stormwater retention as required by
transported significant distances before being treated
the new standard. For sites where the building
or finally disposed. Waste can be categorized into two
footprint encompasses the majority of the parcel
classifications: construction waste and operational
area, green roofs (or rooftop detention) should be
waste (day-to-day life of a city).
the primary retention strategy.
On the East Campus, the large scale of development
Collect and recycle rainwater for landscape
demands effective ways of dealing with waste by
irrigation, toilet flushing, and other uses to meet
minimizing
the retention volume standard.
Efficient design and careful planning of buildings can
Limit the post-development peak discharge to the

pre-development peak discharge rate, by onsite
stormwater management measures, such as wet
or dry detention basins, infiltration basins or
trenches, and underground storage facilities.
its
generation
during
construction.
potentially meet a target of at least 90 percent of

construction waste being diverted from landfills. The
materials and waste principles seek to create buildings
and infrastructure that are efficiently designed, built
with environmentally sustainable materials; consider
deconstruction and aims for zero construction waste.
69
infrastructure.
Use products made of wood that are certified

as harvested from sustainably managed
forests.
Operations
Promote the recycling and reuse of

disposables by providing facilities, education
and separation of materials.
Encourage site users to divert organic waste

material into compost.
Hazardous Materials
Figure 2.33: Multiple recycling options.
Identify hazardous materials and develop a

safe removal and abatement as the campus is
developed.
The materials and waste operations principles seek

to make a substantial contribution to the principle
of eliminating the concept of waste through good
design, emphasizing source reduction, reuse, recycling
and composting.
Materials and Waste Principles
Construction
existing buildings and facilities, and buried in selected

locations on the campus. Detailed review and
research of the historic documentation, previous site
assessments, and regulatory records show that such
landfills and/or incineration.
landscape features include:
Promote preservation of cultural heritage by
Utilize green building practices that

recyclable materials.
Encourage the use of low impact, lowembodied energy materials for buildings and
70
East Campus features hazardous materials within
materials within existing buildings, site structures, and
encourage the efficient use of recycled and
As with many sites developed in the early 1900s, the
Create a waste diversion plan to avoid
salvaging and reusing materials.
Hazardous Materials
Asbestos: ACM vinyl tiles and pipe insulation are

present in some buildings and utilities.
PCB: Power transformers were observed at

Buildings 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 117, 119, and 124.
Power transformers within the project area are
owned by the US General Services Administration
or the District of Columbia. The power
MASTER PLAN
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
Farm
Complex
Hazardous Materials
Legend
Above Ground Storage
Tanks
Magnolia St.
Below Ground Storage

Tanks
Transformers
Water Tower
Fly Ash (Approximate)

Location
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
FEMA
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e.,
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
SE
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.34: Hazardous Materials Diagram

0 100 200
400
71
acres along the northern most portion of the

East Campus, between Suitland Parkway and
Building 81, were formerly operated by the
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
as a landfill under Permit 1-83 (FHWA, 2008).
The landfill was closed between 1983 and 1989,
Figure 2.35: Biodiversity in the Landscape
prior to regulation under the RCRA. The District

DOH determined that the surface soil levels of
polychlorinated dioxins and furans present at
transformers on the East Campus are non-PCBcontaining transformers.
Lead-Based Paint (LBP): LBP is suspected in the

interior wall and ceiling paint, and in the wood
trim of historic structures. Based on the age of the
buildings on the East Campus (those built prior to
1977), it is highly likely LBP may have been used to
paint the exterior of the buildings.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs): Based on a

1995 RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection
the site should not pose a public health threat to

employees, patients, residents, or landfill workers
(FHWA, 2008).
Future development or infrastructure construction on
campus will lead to additional environmental review
and testing for these issues in order to develop a safe
removal and abatement plan. Further details on these
plans are included in Chapter Four. For example, core
sampling is recommended in landfill areas of future
construction that would be at depths greater than 1
foot (FHWA, 2008).
conducted by EPA on the Saint Elizabeths Campus,

there were 10 USTs.
Radon: The rocks and soils found in the vicinity

of the East Campus were mapped as having low
radon potential (average readings of 0 to 4.0
picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
72
Fly Ash and Fill Materials: Approximately 30
Habitat and Biodiversity

The Saint Elizabeths East Campus is characterized by a
significant amount of open green space and wooded
areas. The site provides valuable landscapes in the
District that provide habitats and biodiversity for plant
and animal species. Future development should build
on this legacy by creating landscapes and ecosystems
MASTER PLAN
that are restorative, visually appealing, biologically

diverse, and ecologically sound.
Wetland 1
Opportunities to achieve these goals lie in the

integration of green roofs, green infrastructure,
Wetland 2
landscape plantings, and support of the Districts

biodiversity initiatives. The habitat and biodiversity
principles seek to create valuable landscapes and
ecosystems that are restorative, visually appealing, and
enhance community character, while being functional,
SE
a Ave
Alabam
maintainable, biologically diverse and ecologically

sound. These principles are adjusted to the Campus to
address the discovery of potential wetlands during the
Transportation EA.
Figure 2.36: Wetlands Map
Wetlands Legend
Identified Wetlands
Habitat and Biodiversity Guidelines
Promote the use of green roofs on new and

existing buildings to enhance microclimate, a

Public Realm
biodiverse habitat, and capture stormwater.
Reduce impervious surfaces to mitigate urban

heat island effects.
Include biodiversity and native species in

landscape planting design.
Design sensitively to existing habitats, such as

wetlands and consider opportunities for LID.
Wetlands
During the review of existing site conditions for
the Transportation Environmental Assessment, the
consultant team conducted a detailed survey (including
documentation research and field investigations) of the
East Campus and identified two water bodies that may
be considered wetlands. The U.S. Geological Survey
73
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Buildings and transportation systems significantly
affect greenhouse gas emissions. Saint Elizabeths
should measure its own emissions to minimize their
impact and reduce local air pollution. The carbon
emissions per square foot should be calculated and
a target of 30% reduction by 2020 from a baseline
equivalent to a contemporary new development. The
greenhouse gas emissions principles seek to calculate
the Campuss carbon emissions per square foot and
set a target of 30% reduction by 2020 from a baseline
equivalent to contemporary new development.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Guidelines
Figure 2.37: Electric car charging station near 14th and U,
NW.
Reduce overall carbon dioxide gas emissions to

combat climate change future hazards and adapt
to current changes.
(USGS) quadrangle map, National Wetland Inventory,

District of Columbia Wetland Conservation Plan (District
of Columbia, 1997) and online District geographic
information system files showed no documented
water bodies or wetlands within the project area. A
detailed ecological survey was also conducted for
the site that identified two potential wetlands in the
undeveloped eastern section of the project area. More
detailed information on the wetlands is available in the
Transportation EA wetland delineation report which
the District will use to inform additional planning and
coordination efforts related to this issue.
74
Implement energy efficiency measures for

buildings and infrastructure.
Provide residents and visitors with alternative

transportation options to reduce dependence on
automobiles.
Greenhouse gas emissions are an important indicator

by which the city will be able to determine the success
of the other sustainability principles and methods put
in place on the Campus. By measuring our greenhouse
gas emissions, the city will be able to better determine
our local impact on the global issue of climate change.
MASTER PLAN
UCC
Pine St.
Suitland Pkwy.
Farm
Complex
Magnolia St.
Water Tower
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
FEMA
Maple
Quadrangle
Saint Elizabeths
Hospital
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
MLK Neighborhood
Center
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.38: The Saint Elizabeths East Campus Illustrated Plan

0 100 200
400
75
P u tt i n g i t To g e t h e r
Illustrative Plan & Development Program
The Illustrative Concept Plan shows a potential future
for the East Campus consistent with the Sitewide
Guidelines above, as well as, the policy framework
from the 2008 Framework Plan. The Concept Plan
incorporates key urban elements and design strategies
to enhance districts within the East Campus and shape
great streets, blocks, transit, storefronts, sidewalks,
parks and public open spaces into a unique place of
high quality and character. The Illustrative Concept
Plan represents just one way properties could be
developed in accordance with the recommendations
set forth in this document. Policy directives and the
exact location, scale and design character of public and
Figure 2.39: East Campus & Congress Heights Existing
Buildings
private improvements may ultimately vary in detail,

but should be consistent with the spirit of this plan.
The Illustrative Concept Plan embodies primary
urban design objectives and features, including
park and plaza locations, building types, building
heights, building massing and street configuration
throughout the planning area. It does not specify a
particular development plan for any given site, but
rather communicates an acceptable direction and
level of development consistent with the stated goals,
objectives and policies of this document. Potential
development partners should gain from this plan a
clear understanding of the Districts and stakeholders
expectations for support and approval.
Development Program Summary
The East Campus offers enormous potential as one
of the few large remaining parcels in the District
where significant development can occur. Early in the
Figure 2.40: East Campus & Congress Heights Proposed

Buildings
76
planning effort, several studies were conducted to
MASTER PLAN
UCC
Applied Development
Program Legend
Suitland Pkwy.
Pine St.
Retail
Farm
Complex
Residential
Magnolia St.
Commercial/Innovation Hub
Commercial Office
Hospitality
Water Tower
Educational/Institutional
FEMA
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Civic /Community
Maple
Quadrangle
Saint Elizabeths
Hospital
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Oa
kD
r.
MLK Neighborhood
Center
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
13th St., SE
Malcolm X Ave., SE
Figure 2.41: An application of the development program on the East Campus.

0 100 200
400
77
assess future demand for retail, residential, office, hotel
and other uses on the East Campus, and assist in the
area, supported largely by meeting existing
development of the Master Plan. The studies suggest
pent-up demand. The spaces can be configured
that there is sufficient pent-up demand for residential
in a walkable, town center configuration or in a
and retail development, and these uses could be
mixed-use format
built immediately. The demand increases significantly

when the needs of the forthcoming DHS complex are
and an upscale conferencing hotel with significant

ballroom and non-room revenue.
These assumptions, combined with the guidance and

principles from the Master Plan, yield a total building
program of 4.2 million gross square feet distributed
across both new construction and the reuse of historic
buildings. This development program does not include
the proposed development on the FEMA parcel of
750,000 square foot plus parking. The distribution of
space by general land use categories is summarized
below:
Hospitality: 330,000 gross square feet in two

offerings, a limited service, business-class format
considered.
Civic & Educational: 250,000 gross square feet;

in addition to the above, the site should seek to
incorporate non-commercial activity centers.
Ideally, these centers should take the form of
sophisticated open spaces and creative use of
historic buildings for unique educational and
community development functions.
The unique characteristics, preservation goals, and
Office: 1.8 million gross square feet, including
development objectives for each of the campuss sectors
500,000 gross square feet of Innovation Hub
is an important layer to the Master Plan. The general
space
principles found in this chapter are supplemented by
Residential 1,300 units, in a mixture of for-sale,

for-rent and workforce housing
78
Retail: 206,000 gross square feet of leasable
more sector or parcel specific guidance presented in

the following chapter.
MASTER PLAN
Figure 2.42: Perspective Illustration of the Transit Center on the East Campus
79
Figure 2.41: The Saint Elizabeths East Campus Perspective
80
3: Architecture and
Design Guidelines
Figure 3.1: Perspective View of 13th Street
82
ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Chapter 3: Architecture and Design Guidelines
S i t e-W i d e G u i d e l i n e s
In the Saint Elizabeths East Campus, the District holds both a precious cultural inheritance and a unique economic
development opportunity. These Architecture and Design Guidelines recognize both facts and intend to provide
for future development flexibility while also protecting, engaging, and enhancing the coherence and power of this
historic campus. In essence, they are developed for the following three reasons:
To ensure that the existing historic buildings retain their clear integrity and distinction.
To ensure that a similar coherence, quality, and uniqueness also extend to future buildings.
To ensure that future development is compatible and harmonious with the historic campus.
In order to properly and consistently address issues at both the scale of the entire campus and its constituent parts,
these guidelines are divided into two sections: site-wide guidelines and sector and parcel guidelines. Project design
and project review teams should consider both sections.
The site-wide guidelines are divided into two sections: Historic Structures and New Architecture. The sections follow
a structure similar to that of Chapter Two: fundamental principles are described first and specific recommendations
follow.
83
Historic Structures
Introduction
Recommendations regarding the retention, relocation,
Service Preservation Briefs. The site-wide guidelines
or demolition of existing elements, as well as the
also adapt the West Campus standards related to
locations of new construction, were developed in part
building additions.
from the historic preservation consultation process for

the East Campus Master Plan. These Architecture and
At the same time, the Master Plan must address those
Design Guidelines use those recommendations from
conditions, features, and historic resources unique to
the consultation process as a baseline and address
the East Campus. For example, the West Campus Master
only the treatment of those components proposed to
Plan addresses development that will accommodate
remain on site.
known federal office tenants with specified needs and

requirements. In contrast, the East Campus Master
However, the guidelines herein are meant as
Plan and Architecture and Design Guidelines must
recommendations for future development. Because of
anticipate the needs of unknown tenants and address
Saint Elizabeths designation as a District of Columbia
the capacity and demands of the market.
historic district, each individual demolition, alteration,

or new construction project must be reviewed
The Architecture and Design Guidelines for the
and approved by the District of Columbia Historic
East Campus and West Campus will also differ in
Preservation Review Board (HPRB), as required by local
application: whereas revitalization of the West Campus
laws, and the DC SHPO and the ACHP, as required by
is a federal undertaking subject to federal review. The
the Deed.
East Campus will be private development of District of

Columbia property and will follow review processes
Saint Elizabeths Hospital is divided into the East and
and laws administered by the District of Columbia
West Campuses by Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, and
Historic Preservation Office, Historic Preservation
the two campuses represent different periods and
Review Board, and the historic covenants set forth in
types of historic development. However, both the East
the Deed.
Campus and West Campus are part of the one NHL,

and maintaining its overall integrity is a key objective
The parcel-specific guidelines outlined below address
for both campuses. Therefore, guidelines for the
the four parcels that comprise the significant building
treatment of historic resources must be fundamentally
groupings on the East Campus, as defined in the Saint
consistent on both campuses.
Elizabeths Hospital East Campus Historic Resource

Survey (Traceries, July 2011):
The site-wide guidelines for the treatment of historic

resources adopt the exterior Building Treatment
Standards provided in the Saint Elizabeths West
Campus Preservation, Design, and Development
Guidelines (November 10, 2008) and supplement these
standards with guidance provided by the National Park
84
Parcels 1 and 2: Farm Complex
Parcel 4: 1902 Buildings
Parcel 5: Maple Quadrangle
Parcel 11: Community Technology (CT) Village
There are four contributing buildings not included in

these four parcels and subject only to these general
site-wide guidelines:
Blackburn Laboratory, Building 88 (1923)
Staff Residence No. 6, Building 99 (1924)
Tuberculosis Building 1, Building 102 (1933)
Unnumbered Cottage (ca 1885-1915)
Principles
Respect and emphasize the unique historic

character and resources of the campus.
Retain, rehabilitate, and adapt historic buildings in

an appropriate manner.
Respect spatial relationships among historic

buildings and associated landscapes.
Preserve and restore historically significant

landscape features.
Figure 3.2: Architectural detail of historic Saint Elizabeths
Integrate new development within the campus in

a manner compatible with its historic structures.
prohibits repair, replacement materials shall best

match the original in material, color, and texture.
Building Treatment Guidelines
All work on historic buildings and structures will
be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary

of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
window openings, doors, and door locations.
All work will be designed and executed in a

manner that minimizes damage to or removal of
Alterations should be designed and integrated
character-defining features or significant fabric of
into the historic fabric with minimal impact to the
the building, structure, or setting.
existing architecture.
Rehabilitation work will retain original windows,
All exterior work will be executed in a manner that
Deteriorated building fabric will be repaired rather
minimizes damage to significant landscapes or site
than replaced. When material deterioration
features adjacent to the building or structure.
85
Figure 3.3: Simple massing of brick distinguishes the

architecture .
Figure 3.4: Aerial view of the East Campus.
Treatment of historic materials on the site should
Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on
follow the guidance provided in relevant National
Historic Preservation per the Deed during individual
Park Service Preservation Briefs.
project review.
Any work completed to improve energy efficiency
in the historic buildings or achieve other
manner that, if removed in the future, would
sustainability goals will follow the Secretary of the
leave the critical form and integrity of the historic
Interiors Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability

for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (2011).
Further building treatment guidelines not derived
resources unimpaired.
to contributing landscape and archaeological
character-defining features should be preserved as
resources, and consider impacts on significant
part of any rehabilitation scope. New entrances on

patterns and openings as much as possible to
views and vistas both inside and outside the site.
Additions should be designed to be compatible
minimize the loss of historic fabric.
with, but not duplicative of, historic structures.
Building Addition Guidelines
historic buildings or portions thereof.
The compatibility of individual building additions

will be evaluated by the District of Columbia Historic
86
The placement and design of additions and new

construction should avoid permanent damage
from the West Campus guidelines stipulate that
secondary elevations should use existing fenestration
Building additions should be undertaken in a
Additions should not attempt to create false
All building additions should be designed to

respect the existing historic building fabric,
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
UCC
Pine St.
Parcel Map Legend
570
Parcel Boundary
490
Parcel Number
Magnolia St.
Development Pad for New

Construction
492
Water Tower
2
205
900
860
650
Pecan St.
555
Sycamore Dr.
416
207
4
5
384
1
93
4
18
34
22
336
125
195
Cypres
s St.
60
18
31
207
11
New Saint
Elizabeths Hospital
12
103
th
St.
13
49
34
47
16
11
388
12
0
10
15
93
30
0
15
49
14
430
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
520
55
162
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
17
18
237
13th St., SE
33
0
59
Figure 3.5: East Campus Parcel Diagram

0 100 200
400
87
landscape features, archaeological features,

internal and external views and vistas, and other
character-defining features of the East Campus.
be undertaken in a manner that avoids damage
Review Board and the Advisory Council on Historic
to existing buildings, structures, landscapes,
Preservation, as appropriate per the Deed, will
landscape features, and archaeological features.
evaluate requests for new development proposals on
Additions should be designed to avoid or minimize

the removal of existing historic building fabric and
will optimize the use of existing door and window
openings for connections between the historic
building and any additions.
the Saint Elizabeths East Campus. They are meant to

assist property owners, developers, and architects.
The guidelines are meant to guide, rather than dictate,
the design of buildings and detail of work, in order to
achieve compatible new design in an area with a strong
historic identity.
It is important here to note that compatibility is not
intended to suggest a design strategy of mimicry or
Guidance regarding appropriate design and
replication. Indeed, the District of Columbia Historic
placement of additions relative to the unique
Preservation Guidelines state specifically that a new
existing conditions (buildings, landscapes, and
building should be seen as a product of its own time.
views) on the East Campus is provided in the
To reproduce a historic building, or to copy exactly a
parcel-specific guidelines.
style from the past, creates a false sense of history. By
Entrance features such as canopies and awnings

are discouraged on primary elevations and should
be designed to avoid obstruction of characterdefining features such as porches, surrounds, and
other ornamentation.
These Architecture and Design Guidelines articulate

the principles by which the DC Historic Preservation
Campus guidelines are suggested as follows:
Introduction
Construction and construction staging should
Building addition standards not derived from the West
New Architecture
Rooftop mechanical equipment should not be

visible from the ground.
relating to the existing buildings and the environment,

but being of its own time, a new building shows a
districts evolution just as the existing buildings show
its past.
These guidelines are intended simply to:
Preserve the design integrity of the campus.
Improve the coherence and quality of new

development.
88
Assist property owners, developers, and
massing and detailing and not to compete with
architects.
important existing focal points (Figure 3.6).
Broaden awareness of preservation and design
Symbolic elements and orienting devices are important
issues.
Massing and Form
The existing campus is notable for its formal consistency,
i.e., for the ways in which a relatively simple palette of
building forms and materials was consistently applied
to provide for a variety of space needs and sizes (Figure
3.3). New building massing is encouraged to respect this
lesson, at both the individual and collective scale, by
emphasizing simple, rather than extravagant, aesthetic
statements so it is compatible with existing buildings.
Designers of new structures are encouraged to
components in urban place-making and should play a

role on the expanded Saint Elizabeths East Campus.
However, such elements should not be placed
indiscriminately, but in careful relation to the historic
campus, the neighborhood, and the site itself, in order
to anchor significant views to and through the campus,
and to avoid competing visually or spatially with
existing historic elements. New tower-like elements
or embellishments and orienting devices are therefore
suggested only in the following locations:
number 5.
investigate and pursue opportunities to develop and

emphasize overall urban form rather than exclusively
guidelines.
Two particularly unique aspects of the existing buildings
are cupolas and overhanging hipped roofs. Designers
are therefore encouraged to employ these distinctive
elements sparingly, if at all, in new buildings.
Roofs of new buildings are encouraged to be invisible
from the ground, to minimize visual competition with
existing roofs.
Where new tower elements or other key focal points
occur, they are encouraged to be integral to building
At the southwest corner of development parcel

number 6.
individual architectural form. Particular suggestions in

this regard are contained within the sector and parcel
At the northwest corner of development parcel
At the southeast corner of development parcel

number 14.
These locations are indicated on Figure 3.6. For

additional specifics, please refer to the sector and
parcel guidelines. The height of these elements will
be subject to approval by DC Historic Preservation
Review Board and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, as appropriate per the Deed.
All new building massing will respect build-to lines,
setbacks, and height and frontage parameters
described in the regulating plan.
89
Figure 3.8: . Hipped roofs dominate the campus.
Figure 3.9: . Cupolas are unique to several historic structures.
Figure 3.7: The cupola on Building 92 acts as an existing landmark and should be preserved in the Master Plan.
90
Campus Landmarks
Existing Tower Cupola
Existing Low Cupola
Potential New Landmark Feature
Views
Figure 3.6: Symbolic Elements Diagram
91
Figure 3.10: Faade ordering in the CT Village group.
<12
1 story
Figure 3.11: Grid pattern. Diagram and example: Palazzo Farnese, Rome, Italy, by Michelangelo.
>6 <12
1 story
Figure 3.12: Grid variation. Diagram and example: 40 Bond Street, New York City, by Herzog & de Meuron.
<12
1 story
Figure 3.13: Grid shift. Diagram and example: Science Lab, Zurich, Switzerland, by Baumschlager & Eberle.
92
C top

B middle
A base
Figure 3.14: Basic faade divisions.
Figure 3.15: Base-eave relationship
Division and Proportion
Compositional Grid
The massing and form of new buildings are
Most historic buildings at Saint Elizabeths East are
fundamental to the coherence and compatibility of
symmetrically configured, but not all new building sites
new construction at Saint Elizabeths, but will work best
offer the opportunity for this formal arrangement.
in concert with well-designed faades. Given that new
Fortunately, one simple means of both ordering an
buildings on the East Campus will vary substantially in
individual surface, and of combining an asymmetrical
size, shape, height, and use, special care is necessary
building with a readable faade, is the compositional
to ensure that all new construction will be visually as
grid. While all design circumstances vary, and no project
well as spatially compatible with the historic site. In this
is required to follow it, Figures 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13
regard, some lessons can be learned and incorporated
indicate examples of a highly flexible faade ordering
from both the existing site and broader architectural
system that designers are encouraged to employ and
conventions. This section includes related suggestions
adapt for new buildings.
for the arrangement of building faades.

Horizontal Layers
Order
It is strongly recommended that each building faade
Most existing historic faades at Saint Elizabeths
incorporate three horizontal layers: base, middle,
are highly ordered and consist of a limited number
and top (Figure 3.16A). The specific qualities and
of opening types and sizes, typically arranged in
relationships between these layers will be particular to
predictably repeating patterns (Figure 3.10). These
an individual buildings design and may be explicit or
simple ordering systems play functional roles, but also
subtle. However, the general considerations involved
typify a design approach that defers to urban neighbors
are ubiquitous: every building faade, regardless of
rather than calls attention to the faades themselves.
location, context, size, or configuration, is seen in
In support of this deferential approach, new building
relation to the ground, and requires entrances and
faades are encouraged to establish and rigorously
related functional adjustments at that level. Likewise,
follow systems of geometric ordering.
each building will be seen in relation to the sky and/or
93
A. Horizontal banding
B. Variation in massing
C. Extended height
D. Reduced height
Figure 3.16: Examples of Top Differentiation

94
A. Material change
B. Setback/colonnade
C. Extended height
D. Material change and extended height
Figure 3.17: Examples of Base Differentiation

95
to other elements above and behind it, and designers
Top
should consider these factors accordingly.
The role of the top layer is to address and resolve the

termination of the upper portion of the faade. The
Base
design of the top should be integral and consistent
The role of the base is to address and resolve the
with, though not necessarily identical to, the design of
relationship of the faade to the ground, in terms of
the faade layers below. Means of distinguishing the
design, construction, visual perception, and access.
top may include, but are not necessarily limited to the
It is suggested that the building base comprise one
following:
to two stories in height and correspond legibly with a

significant horizontal datum (e.g., the eave height) on
the nearest historic structure and/or with the base
height of an adjacent new building (Figure 3.16B). The
design of the base should be integral to and consistent
with, though not necessarily identical to, the design of
the faade layers above. Means of distinguishing the
base may include, but are not necessarily limited to the
following:
Variation in actual or apparent story height
Variation in actual or apparent story height. The onestory limit noted above, would not apply in the top
layer (Figure 3.16 C, D).
Variation in material and detail, consistent with Section
5.4, below. It is recommended that the top not appear
to have greater visual weight than the layers below.
Horizontal banding (Figure 3.16 A).
Variation in window size (Figure 3.16 C, D).
(Figures 3.16C).
Variation in material and detail. It is

recommended that the base not appear to have
less visual weight than the layers above (Figures
3.17 A, D).
Horizontal banding (Figure 3.16A).
Variation in plane (Figure 3.16B).
Variation in window size (Figure 3.16, all).
Window Proportions
Window openings within existing campus buildings
are typically more vertical than horizontal, as is typical
of older masonry buildings. This condition poses
a potential opportunity to develop compatibility
between both existing and new campus buildings, as
well as across the range of new buildings. New building
designs are therefore encouraged to explore, develop,
and deploy a height-width ratio of 1.5:1 or greater for
new window openings and full-story glass lights.
Middle
96
The middle layer comprises the standard pattern of
Building Color, Materials and Details
faade division within a building. It is recommended
The existing historic buildings consist of very few
that this section consist of a minimum of two floors
exterior
between the base and top layers. Should a faade
consistency , and each new building is encouraged to
employ the grid strategy described above, it would be
deploy a palette of similar order and coherence. As
most clearly visible in this layer.
previously noted, new buildings should be compatible
materials,
deployed
with
remarkable
Figure 3.18: Built examples of material palette ranges (including existing campus)
with existing ones and with each other. New exterior

materials and detailing should be generally consistent
in quality and approach across the campus, and direct
competition with the unique historic campus should be
minimized.
Color
A consistent palette will help new buildings to be
compatible with existing ones as well as with each
other. Designers are encouraged, therefore, to develop
and employ a primary color palette for new buildings
that corresponds to one of the color ranges described
Figure 3.19: Suggested ranges of material colors.
in Figure 3.18 or to those within the existing buildings.

Variations within a color range are encouraged where
they are consistent with the overall design concept.
Variations outside the color ranges should be consistent
with the overall design goals of the building faade and
its relation to the campus.
The use of glass is likewise encouraged to be consistent
with the overall design goals of the building faade and
its relation to the campus. Designers are encouraged
to employ colorless glass or of a color from the ranges
described in Figure 3.19. Window mullion and related
97
framing materials (excepting wood, if used) are

encouraged to be similar in color to either the adjacent
glass or adjacent faade.
Materials
The suggested color ranges correspond to a flexible
variety of high-quality construction materials (Figure
3.20), including but not limited to, stone (e.g., limestone,
granite, bluestone, slate), metal (e.g., zinc, painted or
stainless steel), concrete (cast-in-place or precast), tile
(ceramic or terracotta), and glass. In keeping with the
nature of the existing campus, designs are encouraged
to use three or fewer primary building materials,
including glass.
The existing historic campus buildings are almost
exclusively composed of materials prone to diffuse
(soft) rather than specular (hard) light reflection,
primarily because of their particular surface textures.
This condition greatly affects the overall visual
appearance of the campus and suggests that new
buildings be composed primarily of materials which
have similar visual softness. Exterior materials visually
incompatible with this requirement are polished
or reflective stone (e.g., polished granite), polished
or reflective metal panels (e.g., polished stainless
steel or aluminum panels), and highly reflective and/
or mirrored glass. They are recommended for new
buildings on the campus.
Additional exterior materials are not recommended
because of their likelihood of incompatibility with the
existing campus. They include brick dissimilar to the
existing brick (in color, texture, and size) or the color
ranges described above; any type of stucco or render,
Figure 3.20: Variations in Material and Treatment
98
including exterior insulation finishing systems (EIFS);

concrete masonry units (CMU); painted concrete; fibercement panels; opaque or spandrel glass; and vinyl
(Figure 3.21).
Visibility
Where circumstances require that regions of a faade
lack fenestration, those sections should remain
generally consistent with other regions in design,
detailing, and quality of materials. Faade components
should be configured and detailed so that cars parked
inside a building are not visible from any point outside
the building.
Qualitative Issues
Some important design concerns can be difficult, if
not impossible, to pinpoint through straightforward
guidelines or principles. The following sections
Figure 3.21: Materials not recommended for new buildings.
summarize several such concerns and articulate related

considerations relevant to the quality of proposed
projects.
Building entrances received special design and detailing
attention in many of the existing historic buildings on
the campus (Figure 3.22). New pedestrian entrances
are encouraged to express the same qualities of relative
distinction and clarity.
Historic building entrances are typically located
symmetrically within faades, but new pedestrian
entrances may be handled otherwise. For example,
they may be located off-center or at corners, in order to
address particular site relationships and compositional
opportunities (Figure 3.22).
New vehicular entrance doors will obviously have

different size and performance requirements, but
these doors and door surrounds should be placed on
secondary elevations if possible and are encouraged
to follow a design approach compatible with the base
layer of the faade in which they sit (Figure 3.22).
Faade depth
The visual qualities of a faade, including its relative
compatibility with adjacent structures, are in part the
product of its handling of depth (or the lack thereof).
This depth can affect the perception of light, shadow,
texture, transparency, and color. Some additional
99
questions to ask in this regard may include: Is depth used

advantageously, judiciously, and with economy? Does it
work both at the scale of the building components and
at the scale of the entire building? Are the materials
and assemblies used to achieve it properly selected,
proportioned, and balanced? Is the whole greater than
the sum of its parts?
Faade Construction
The quality, craftsmanship, and decoration of materials,
surfaces, and joints are important to the future quality
of the entire campus. Poor detail design or execution
can irreparably damage even the most elegant faade
idea. All design concepts are therefore encouraged to
incorporate and provide for all foreseeable techniques,
tolerances, costs, and compromises of construction.
Coherence
Beyond the physical elements and attributes of any
project lies the important consideration of their relation
to each other, of a projects coherence as a whole.
In addition to the other concerns described above,
designers and reviewers are strongly encouraged to
consider this issue and to strive for internal consistency
the correspondence between design goals and design
choices - in any project.
Quality and Uniqueness
It is recommended that reviewers consider projects
holistically and allow for variance from the Architecture
and Design Guidelines as appropriate e.g., on the
basis of design merit - and when not in conflict with
the overall goals of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
Master Plan.
Figure 3.22: Comparison of historic and contemporary

building entrances.
100
Figure 3.23: Illustrative perspective of the proposed East Campus.
101
S e cto r P r i n c i p l e s a n d
Guidelines
Each sector and parcel incorporates local design
principles and guidelines that are tailored to its unique
planning intent and site conditions. These guidelines
acknowledge and reflect the historic variation
in development and use across the campus, and
anticipate that future development will be similarly
varied and complex. It is the intent of these guidelines
to articulate and respect the unique character of each
area of the campus and to help every area develop to
its highest potential.
S e cto r: Fa r m C o m p l e x
The Farm Complex, at the far north end of the East
Campus, contains the oldest existing buildings on the
campus. Although these residential and farm buildings
having visual and historic impacts.
minimal hardscape.
exhibit a range of architectural vocabularies, they form

a cohesive unit in their distinction from the larger
masonry hospital buildings on the East Campus. Their
of Saint Elizabeths Hospital and the agricultural roots
King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue.
complex.
Sector Urban Design Principles
Respect the sites agricultural history and
102
Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings

and grounds for small-scale agricultural and/or
community-serving uses.
Minimize outdoor storage of materials for

agricultural uses that are unscreened.
character.
Create landscape buffers to screen future Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) facility.
of the East Campus. Development in this area should

respect the agricultural history and character of the
Maintain visibility and provide secure, welcoming

connections between the site and Martin Luther
presence in the historic district is the singular reminder

of the role and importance of the farm to the history
Develop safe and adequate site circulation with
Retain all existing buildings along with the farm
Parcel Summary
scale and the gate piers.
The Farm Complex Sector includes development Parcel
Minimize building alterations, particularly those
1.

Farm Complex
Sector
1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
Alabam
Figure 3.24: Recommended Building Heights Diagram

0 100 200
400
103
Pa r c e l 1
Figure 3.25: Illustrated plan focused on Parcel 1.
Parcel Area
6.6 Acres
New Development Pad
0 Acres
Area
Recommended Building
2 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Commercial/Innovation,
Ground Floor Retail
Civic/Community
Not Allowed, See Fig.
Recommended FAR
2.15
0.25
Programmed Open Space Community Garden

Additional Information
Relocation of Unnamed
Cottage
Figure 3.26: Parcel 1 Key Map
104
H i s to r i c R e s o u r c e s: Pa r c e l 1
Board and Batten Siding
Brick Foundation
Gabled Roof
Cupola
Figure 3.27: Character Defining Features of Parcel 1
Parcel 1 Contributing Buildings

Staff Residence No. 8, Building 79, 1888
Exposed rafter ends
Dry Barn, Building 82, 1884
Metal roof shingles
Horse Barn, Building 83, 1902
Bluestone piers and concrete bridge
Staff Residence No. 9, Building 86, 1888
Board and batten siding
Secondary Historic Built Resources
Brick foundation
Farm Scale, pre-1921
Red brick walls
Complex hipped roof form
Cupola
Parcel 1 Character-Defining Features

Residential scale and character
Frame construction
Dormer windows
Gabled roof forms
Courtyard
Multi-light wood sash windows
Stone and brick detailing and ornamentation
Porches
Remnants of cobblestone entry
Jerkinhead roof form
105
C
5
sector is strong desire of theL Ecommunity.

GEND
Community
Park 2
FEMA Parcel: Subject to the Master Plan and

Design Guidelines
14
General location for architectural or urban design

features (refer to Design Guidelines)
Coordinate development pads with WMATA
Historic landscape areas
Building set back line

14
75
R/W
SE
a Ave.
Alabam
Parcel number
Development pads for new construction
18*
Loading and parking access areas
Historic Building Number
N OT E S
Existing historic building to be preserved
Right-of-way/parcel line
Existing historic building to be preserved & relocated
Suggested Building Setback Location

1. See the Sa
13th Street Section
for addition
Pecan Street Section
to items suc

Design Guidelines
for physical activity and access to healthy food that
Existing historic architectural features may be

removed
number
enhance the neighborhoods Parcel
livability.
Additional

Street centerline
Restoration of the farm complex will offer opportunities

14
programming on the site couldCoordinate

include
child,padsyouth,
development
with WMATA

and adult education, workforce
training, small
18*
14
Retail on One Side Section
Retail on Two Side Section
Sycamore Street Section
Cypress Street Section
Typical Street Section
business incubation and development, and potential
employment opportunities, while future building

rehabilitation could provide an additional community
resource such as meeting rooms.
A.2 Non-contributing materials and features (asbestos

shingles, vinyl siding, temporary railings, etc.) should
No potential archaeological resources were identified
be removed from the cottages where possible and
in this parcel as part of the Phase 1A archaeological
replaced with materials and features appropriate
survey.
to the period and type of construction of the

cottages. Replacement of missing features should be
Parcel 1 Design Guidelines
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial
Addition and Modification:
evidence.
Today, only two of the original East Campus agricultural

buildings remain in their original locations: the Dry Barn
and the Horse Barn (Buildings 82 and 83, respectively).
Two of the original staff cottages (Buildings 79 and 86)
were relocated to this parcel in 2005 and are the last
remaining residential buildings associated with farming
on the East Campus. The Scale, a structure used as part
of the agricultural operations, is also extant within the
Farm Complex.
A.1 Character-defining features of the contributing
buildings should be preserved as part of any
rehabilitation/modification scope.
106
75
R/ W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
Existing historic building to be preserved7&5 relocate
W
R / be
14Existing historic architectural features may
G
removed
reminders of both the agricultural roots of the East

Hospital. Restoring the historic agricultural use of the
40
Street centerline
oldest buildings on the East Campus and the last

Campus and the farms importance in the history of the
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
LEGEND
40
The sites two barns and two staff cottages are the
8th St. SE
Parcel 1
108
40
2.
2.
10
11
107
G
0.5
40
10
106
109
110
40
7
R/ 5
W
Ma
r
A.3 The farm scale should be retained in its original

location and preserved or restored. Because of the
character of this resource, no additions or major
alterations should be undertaken.
A.4 Additions should be limited to secondary elevations
and not be visible from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue.
A.5 Additions should be designed to be compatible
with the material and character of the historic buildings
in the Farm Complex.
A.6
Additions to the barns outside their existing
District o
Precinct
Maximu
Minimum
Open Sp
Landsca
Architec
Architec
Building
Parking a
Pine St.
82
1
83
86
Magnolia St.
79
ST ELIZABETHS WEST
CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
HEADQUARTERS (DHS)
75
R/W
Pecan St.
44
75
R/W
44
60
88
90
R/W
4A
90
2.5
89
5
/W
M aster
MLK
amore St.
Figure 3.28: Regulating plan focusing on Parcel 1.

2.5
Maple
Quad
P lan and
D esign G uidelines
10
107
10
footprints should be avoided. Necessary additions

should be confined to rear elevations only, and
designed to minimize impacts on the barns agricultural
character.
A.7 The integrity of the two remaining staff cottages
has been diminished by their relocation and previous
alterations. Alterations that further compromise that
integrity should be avoided.
A.8
Additions should be compatible in size and
massing, and not exceed the cornice or roof line of the

associated building.
New Architecture
N.1 The development of Parcel 1 does not anticipate
the construction of major buildings, but minor
Figure 3.29: The Farm Complex can support community
gardening.
structures may be needed in support of agriculture

and/or community uses. Agricultural improvements to
the land should enhance rather than detract from the
historic structures.
N.2 Modest surface parking adjacent to buildings 82
and 83 would be permitted, so long as it is designed
to minimize impervious surfaces and is screened with
landscape buffers.
Landscape
No distinctive landscape characteristics remain.
The road leading from MLK to the barns retains its
original alignment but has no material integrity. Open
space around the buildings has been largely paved or
developed, and the relocated cottages are not within
their original setting.
108
L.1 It is anticipated the new paving is needed for new

circulation and parking areas. Parking should be placed
behind buildings so it is not seen from MLK Ave to help
restore the agricultural setting of the Farm Complex.
L.2 The existing alignment of Magnolia Street should
be preserved. If its width needs to be adjusted, that
should be done carefully in order to retain the concrete
piers at the entry gate. Widening should be done in
coordination with the General Services Administration
and Department of Homeland Security East Campus
North Parcel Master Plan.
L.3 The remnants of cobblestone at the entry to the
Horse Barn should be preserved, as should the ramps
to the Dry Barn. Any other cobblestone remnants
uncovered should also be preserved.
109
S e cto r: M a p l e
Q ua d r a n g l e
The Maple Quadrangle Sector lies toward the north
end of the East Campus, between Martin Luther,
Jr. Avenue and 13th Street. It is among the most
Heights, and nearby areas.
that convey the distinct phases of historic
prominent areas of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus,
development within the Sector.
and contains two groups of significant buildings and

associated landscapes: the 1902 Buildings and the
Preserve spatial and landscape relationships
Preserve and enhance the historic Maple
Maple Quadrangle Buildings. These two groups are the
Quadrangle as a distinct building-defined
oldest hospital buildings on the East Campus.
landscape.
Because of the size and quality of these historic
activity for the East Campus.
buildings and the proximity to and views from MLK, the

Maple Quadrangle represents a major opportunity for
development and public life. It is intended to become
combines research, educational, and business activities.
Respect the cupolas of Building 92 and the 1902

Buildings as focal points.
a vibrant economic and social center for both the East

Campus and the location for an Innovation Hub that
Use the open spaces to provide hubs of public
Coordinate design decisions with the principles

and guidelines of adjacent Sectors.
Key to this development will be an appropriate and a

compatible balance between the areas historic quality
and new development.
Parcel Summary
The Maple Quadrangle Sector includes development
Maple Quadrangle Urban Design Principles
Retain, respect and adaptively reuse the 1902

Buildings and Maple Quadrangle Buildings.
Create new development that is distinctive in

design and compatible with the historic character
of the Maple Quadrangle Sector.
Create a spatially and visually significant point of

entry from MLK to the East Campus, and maintain
a visual connection between the East and West
campuses of Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
Provide a pedestrian-friendly streetscape that

attracts users from the West Campus, Congress
110
Parcels 3, 4 and 5.

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Maple Quad
Sector
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
m
a
b
la
A

0 100 200
400
111
Pa r c e l 3
Parcel Area
4.1 Acres
New Development Pad
2.8 Acres
Area
7 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Commercial Office,
Ground Floor Retail
Residential
Allowed, See Fig. 2.15
Recommended FAR
for specific locations

2.5
Programmed Open Space MLK Forecourt
112
Figure 3.33: The open MLK Forecourt can support large

community activities such as outdoor movie viewing.
Figure 3.34: Impromptu or organized seating can take

place on the MLK Forecourt.
Parcel 3
Parcel 3 lies prominently along Martin Luther King, Jr.
In addition to new buildings, this parcel is intended to
(MLK) Avenue, at the western edge of the East Campus.
provide a brand-new public open space, connecting
It offers significant development potential for the East
MLK, Jr. Avenue directly to the historic interior of the
Campus and Ward 8, and offers the opportunity to
Maple Quadrangle. This public space will become one
create an attractive, open, and inviting campus faade
of the most significant and best-known public spaces on
along MLK Avenue. Located near the planned FEMA
the East Campus, and will help to foster a harmonious
headquarters, this parcel should consist of ground-
relationship between the new development and
floor retail with office space on upper floors marketed
historic campus.
to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

contractors or similar users.
113

Addition and Modification
The development of Parcel 3 does not incorporate any
historic resources. Therefore, no guidance on addition
or modification is required.
intersection.
N.4 The new buildings on Parcel 3 should frame and
enhance the view of Maple Quadrangle and the cupola
Historic Resources
of Building 92. Building elevations facing onto the MLK
Forecourt should be complementary and in keeping
historic resources.
with the Forecourt objectives as described in the

landscape guidelines for Parcel 3. Architectural framing
New Architecture
devices (e.g., towers) on these buildings may detract
The new architecture within Parcel 3 will play an
from these objectives and are discouraged.
important role in the successful redevelopment of the

East Campus. It will also define the experience of two
N.5 Similarly, the south faade of Parcel 3 should be
key landscape features of the East Campus: the MLK
compatible with the north faade of Parcel 7, as the
Forecourt and the view from MLK Avenue into Maple
two parcels will together define the MLK Neighborhood
Quadrangle.
Center. Important views to consider include those both

east and west along Cypress Street.
N.1 The prominence of Parcel 3 within the historic

campus provides an opportunity for design creativity
N.6 Massing should respect the build-to, setback,
and excellence that can influence the quality of new
height and frontage parameters described in the
architecture on other parcels within the East Campus.
regulating plan.
This opportunity should be recognized and pursued.
Landscape
N.2 Faades visible along MLK Avenue will create an
Positioned prominently along MLK, the MLK Forecourt
image for all new development. All faades should be
should be an adaptable green space. It provides both
compatible with both the existing Maple Quadrangle
a front lawn for the Maple Quadrangle Sector and a
and with adjacent areas of the West Campus.
hub of activity for the entire East Campus. The MLK
Consideration should be given to views from both
Forecourt will preserve a large portion of the green
areas.
lawn that historically occupied this parcel, close to the

1902 buildings along Sycamore Street.
N.3 The new buildings should encourage continuous
114
pedestrian traffic along and between MLK Avenue
L.1 The Forecourt should frame views from Martin
and Sycamore and Dogwood Streets where feasible.
Luther King Jr. Ave into the historic Maple Quadrangle,
Maximal ground-floor activity and transparency are
and particularly toward the Cupola of Building 92. To
encouraged at key locations such as the intersection
protect these views, vertical landscape elements such
of MLK Avenue and Cyprus Street, at the edges of
as tall trees are encouraged only toward the edges of
the green, and at the MLK Avenue and Pecan Street
the space.
8th
2.
2.
40
40

Design Guidelines
88

Design Guidelines
90
90
R/W
75
R/W
92
Cypr
Comm
2.
93
9
R/ 0
10 W
2.
10
75
R/W
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
40
112
40
75 W
R/
0.
5
10
5
0. 5
0.
40
100
102
5
0.
2.5
2.5
75
R/ W
44
40
75
R/W
76
R/W
44
Cypress St.
75
W
R/
2
44
Ty
60
90
R/W
75
R/W
7
17.5
. 5 3.
8
Figure 3.35: Regulating plan focusing on
1 7Parcel
5
Community
2.
5
Park 1
.
2
er
Kin
gJ
r. A
ve
SE
Cy
10
29
CL
C
40
Sy
10
94
Re
10
4B
Re
District of Columbia
Precinct Areas
Maximum density ra
Minimum density ra
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Architectural urban d
Building Frontage
Parking and service a
75
R/ W
MLK
Plaza
Pe
95
13
N OT E S
Maple
Quad
40
60
2.5

1. See the Saint Elizabeth
13th Street Section
for additional criteria a
to items such as:
89
Sycamore St.
MLK
Forecourt
2.5
60


14

removed
4A

18*
14
14
E
Parcel number
75
R/W
18*
Street centerline
Pecan St.
LEGEND
Ave. SEor urban design

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
Parcel number
44
75
R/W
44
75
R/W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
Existing historic building to be preserved7&5 relocated
W
R / be
G
removed
14
40
Community
Park 2
Street centerline
75
R/ W
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
LEGEND
14
40
107
G
0.5
10
11
10
15
75
R/W
7
R/ 5
W
40
106
109
110
Ma
rtin
ETHS WEST
MPUS
MENT OF
ND SECURITY
RTERS (DHS)
Park 1
111
115
public art and creative programming.

L.6 Refer to the MLK Plaza landscape guidelines found
in Parcel 7 in MLK Neighborhood Center sector to
coordinate site design.
Publically Accessible Open Space: MLK Forecourt
The forecourt is a large open lawn centered on the
cupola on Building 92 as well as Redwood Street as it
leads towards the Maple Quad. An acre in size, it is the
largest park in on the East Campus. It is intended to be
a focal point of the neighborhood for all surrounding
activities which could include passive recreation,
exhibitions, concerts, festivals, cafs, some temporary
kiosk retail, and evening outdoor movies.
Much of the park should be pervious and predominantly
Figure 3.36: Shaded sidewalks will frame the lawn on the
MLK Forecourt.
in place so that the ground will resist compaction from

peoples activities to ensure the lawn remains green
L.2 The majority of the space is encouraged to be
and inviting. If an underground parking garage is built
planned as a flexible and durable open lawn. It should
under the Forecourt then proposed park trees should
incorporate engineered soil to resist compaction and
be accommodated with an enough volume of soil to
irrigation to keep the lawn green and inviting.
ensure long-term viability of the individual tree.
L.3 The north and south edges immediately adjacent

to building frontages should be paved to accommodate
a gracious caf seating zone (approximately 12 feet
wide), a walking zone (approximately 15 feet wide), and
a pad area for temporary structures, carts, etc.
L.4 The walking zone should be lined on both sides
by deciduous trees to reinforce both the pedestrian
circulation and edges of the lawn. Trees, paving,
lighting, seating, and signage will also contribute to this
relationship between building and landscape.
L.5 The MLK Forecourt should be a priority site for
116
grass. It is recommended that engineered spoil be put
Figure 3.37: Perspective Illustration of the MLK Forecourt
117
Pa r c e l 4
Parcel Area
3.6 Acres
New Development Pad
0 Acres
Area
2 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Educational Institution,
Ground Floor Retail
Civic/Community
Allowed, See Fig. 2.15 for
Recommended FAR
specific locations
0.58
Programmed Open Space None
118
Cupola
Symmetry
Secondary Entrance
Red brick exterior walls
Figure 3.40: Parcel 4 Character Defining Features
Parcel 4 Contributing Buildings:

Building 88, 1923
Red brick walls and red ceramic roof tiles
Overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends and

brackets
R Building, Building 89, 1902
N Building, Building 94, 1902
Cupolas
I Building, Building 95, 1902
Brick chimneys
Parcel 4 Character-Defining Features:

Highly articulated footprints
Prominent central entrances from Sycamore

Street
Punched openings with multi-light wood windows
Complex roof forms and rooflines
Symmetry in elevation and plan
One- and two-story porches
119
40
75
Parcel
4
R/ W
40
75
R/W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
75
R/W
40
SE
a Ave.
m
a
b
la
.
A St
od
o
w
Transit
g
Do
17*
Square

Design Guidelines

el line
ject to the Master Plan and

removed
Number
5
5
2.
2.
75
R/W
90
R/ W
District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan
Open Space
Campus
of Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
N OT E S
60
Landscape
and architectural
ties to the development
on the West
G Typical Street Section
line
10
10
for additional criteria and diagrams pertaining

to items such as:

1. See the Saint Elizabeths East Design Guidelines
13th Street Section
to items such as:
18*
the east side

ofStreet
Sycamore
Street, 1.and
includes
the
See the Saint
Elizabeths East
Design Guidelines
Section
A 13th
s for new construction
75
R/W
A G

2. Access
Architecture
Architectural urban design features
Building Frontage
Parking and service areas
Development in this area will focus Entrances

on theshallpreservation,
align with each other when
across a street.
Service
and alley
entrances should
District of Columbiaand
Comprehensive
Plan
rehabilitation,
judicious
reuse
ofloading
these
precious
Precinct Areas
be a minimum distance of 60 feet from any
measured from the edge of

Maximum density
resources
forrangethe Innovation intersection
Hub ascomponents
the public right-of-way.
Minimum density range
Loading, parking and alley entrances shall

Open Space
including
small office space, incubators,
meeting and
not be located along the build-to line that
Landscape
Architecture
borders a publicly accessible open space
gathering
spaces,
other specialty
uses suitable for
Architectural
urban designand
features
3. Right of Way for the redesign of Martin
Building Frontage
King Jr. Ave SE for reference only &

the unique
spaces
within the Luther
1902
buildings.
Parking and service
areas
not
to be considered
accurate. Along
with the buildings themselves, the landscaped areas

around them should be treated with respect and care.
The 1902 Buildings are consistent with the cottage
plan of small-scale detached buildings within
a picturesque landscape to create a home-like
atmosphere for patients. Designed by Shepley, Rutan,
and Coolidge, the 1902 Buildings are two-story
masonry structures executed in the Italian Renaissance
Revival architectural style.
Each building was provided with open porches for
patients to receive natural light and fresh air. These
porches were enclosed in 1918 to create additional
interior space for patients, but remain a prominent
120
Transit
Square
0 .5
0 .5
40
the East Campus

SEfacilities constructed
Precinct and
Areas are the
Side Section
D Retail on Two on
a Ave.
Maximum density range
Alabam
Sycamore
Street
Section
E on the East Campus with direct historical
only buildings
Parcel number
opment pads with WMATA
17*
B Pecan Street Section

1902 Buildings.
These structures were the first hospital

St.
od
o
gw
Do
Parcel 4 lies immediately to the eastN OT

ofE SParcel 3, along
40
40
Community
Park 2
Transit
Square
90 W
R / 1D0
10
2.
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
Street centerline
14
14
2.
2.
11
LEGEND
18*
0.5
10
107
14
15
60
75
R/ W
40
40
106
109
ProposedCommunity
Metro Park 2
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
108
D Entrancce
40
16*
107
5
5
2.
8th St. SE
110
Community
Park 1
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
10
7
R/ 5
W
0.
0.
40
Transit
Square
Existing Wetlands
10
40
111
0.
40
75 W
R/
7
R/ 5
W
G
2.
15
0.5
11
10
0.
106
109
10
110
12
40
10
112
9
R/ 0
W
0.
2.
10
7
R
40
7
10 R 5
/W
5
0. 5
0.
0.
Ma
r
100
75
R/W
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
Park 1
2.5
40
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
i
t
L
n
b
3. R
Luthe
not t
S WEST
S
NT OF
ECURITY
RS (DHS)
75
R/W
Pecan St.
44
75
R/W
60
88
90
R/W
4A
90
2.5
89
10
10
75
R/W
CL
95
60
90
R/W
75
R/ W
93
4B
2.
5
2.
94
10
75
R/W
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
40 5
5
0. 5
0.
40
100
75
R/W
7
17.5
8
17.5
5
Community
2.
5
Park 1
.
2
102
5
0.
2.5
2.5
112
111
0.
5
10
Community
75
R/ W
76
R/W
44
40
75
R/W
C
40
Cypress St.
40
75 W
R/
gJ
r. A
ve
SE
2
44
44
75
W
R/
MLK
Plaza
0.
Cypress
Commons
40
92
9
R/ 0
10 W
29
Sycamore St.
MLK
Forecourt
Maple
Quad
10
2.5
60
44
121
architectural feature. The 1902 Buildings are the most
A.6 Porches should remain as distinct forms and
ornate on the East Campus and exhibit architectural
features, and all porch elevations should remain
features unique to this phase of development. These
unobstructed by additions.
buildings have also suffered the most deterioration

and will need the most intervention to stabilize and
rehabilitate.
not originally enclosed and methods of enclosure
A.1 If porches are converted to conditioned spaces
windows, masonry) are generally incompatible with
and glazing is introduced, new porch enclosures should
the character of the buildings and can be removed if
remain distinct from the buildings windows.
the porches are to be re-opened.
A.8 Any new porch enclosures should be transparent
in order to convey the original use and character of
rehabilitation/modification scope. The architecture of
these features, and to maintain their distinction from
new additions should be compatible with the character
window openings.
of the historic buildings.
have varied over time. Current enclosures (screens,
A.9 The incorporation of flat green roofs on additions
A.3 Additions to the 1902 Buildings should be limited
is encouraged, but these planted roofs should not be
to the original rear (east) elevations of the historic
visible from the street.
buildings and not visible from Sycamore Street.
New Architecture
A.4 Additions should be designed to allow the buildings
N.1 New architecture within Parcel 4 will be limited
original footprint to remain legible and avoid creating
to additions to the existing 1902 Buildings (see the
the effect of infill.
previous section for relevant design guidelines).
A.5 The height of an addition should not exceed or

touch the eave line of the historic building.
122
A.7 The porches should be preserved. They were
Landscape
The landscaping and green space around the 1902
Buildings historically consisted of dense and informal
groupings of large shrubs and trees that helped to
create a private and therapeutic environment for the
patients and staff. Many mature plantings remain in
place today, but much of the historic landscaping is no
longer intact or has deteriorated.
L.1 New landscaping around the 1902 Buildings should
be both informal and dense, in keeping with the
character of the historic landscaping.
L.5
Designs for new accessibility features should
maintain the symmetry of the building and associated

green space as viewed from Sycamore Street.
Disruption of the historic approach from Sycamore
Street to the building entrances is discouraged.
L.6 A pedestrian connection running through the
center of the MLK Forecourt connecting MLK to
Sycamore Street is required. This connection should
be centered with Redwood Street. This connection
symbolizes the historic drive.
L.2 Foundation plantings are discouraged.

L.3 Restoration of original paving areas to green space
is strongly encouraged. The need for new sidewalks
and pedestrian ways will have to be balanced with the
desire to respect the historic landscape character.
L.4 The circulation paths leading from Sycamore Street
to the building entrances should be restored.
123
Pa r c e l 5
Parcel Area
8.9 Acres
New Development Pad
2.24 Acres
Area
1 - 5 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Hospitality, Educational
Ground Floor Retail
Institution
Recommended FAR
specific locations
1.5
Programmed Open Space Community Garden

Relocation of Unnamed
Cottage
124
Plants in entry court
Masonry corridor
Roof terrace
Plants in entry court
Plant Cluster
Cupola
Parcel 5 Contributing Buildings within Parcel 5:

W. W. Eldridge Building, Building 90, 1931
Charles H. Nichols Building, Building 92, 1936
William A. White Building, Building 93, 1934
Parcel 5 Secondary Historic Built Resources:

Corridor between Buildings 90-91-92-93, 1934
Highly articulated footprints
Complex massing, roof forms and rooflines
Cupola of Building 92
Prominent central entrances from the

quadrangle to each building
Raised entry courts and/or entry terraces
Open roof terraces
Prominent secondary entrances from the

quadrangle to the side wings of each building.
Red brick exterior walls and red ceramic roof

tiles
Punched openings with multi-light metal

windows
Ornamental metal window grilles
Interior enclosed porches
One masonry corridor connecting the three

buildings
125
10
11
107
treatment philosophies, from a moral approach to

LEGEND
medical intervention.
14


14
75
R/W
SE
a Ave.
Alabam
Parcel number
18*
Street centerline

Design Guidelines

removed
Parcel number


and is thus a major opportunity
for both economic
18*
development and historic preservation.

Reuse of the
Maple Quadrangle group and its major central open
14
space should be carefully planned to balance these

important objectives. Proposed uses within this parcel
include hotel and Innovation Hub opportunities.
The Maple Quadrangle Buildings are distinct from all
other buildings at Saint Elizabeths Hospital (both East
and West campuses) in size, scale, and function, and
surpass their predecessors in both height and footprint.
However, they are similar to other campus buildings in
sharing the Italian Renaissance Revival vocabulary used
throughout the East Campus.
The Maple Quadrangle Buildings retain their
original metal screen porch enclosures, which were

designed to allow air circulation while also providing
security. If porches are converted to conditioned
spaces and glazing is introduced, new porch enclosures
should remain distinct from the buildings windows.
126
N OT E S

1. See the Sa
13th Street Section
for addition
to items suc
buildings expected to remain Development

on the pads
East
Campus,
for new
construction
A.1
75
R/ W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
Existing historic building to be preserved7&5 relocate
W
R / be
G
removed

Design Guidelines
The Maple Quadrangle group comprises the largest

14
Community
Park 2
in the 1930s as a general hospital for the entire Saint

Elizabeths Campus and marked a significant shift in
Street centerline
heart of the East Campus and includes the Maple

Quadrangle Buildings. This group was constructed
40
LEGEND
40
Parcel 5 lies between Parcel 4 and 13th Street at the
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
Parcel 5
8th St. SE
40
2.
2.
10
0.5
40
110
7
R/ 5
W
A.3 Roof terraces on buildings 90, 92, and 93 should
remain open. Security features provided around the
terraces should not be visible from the ground.
A.4 The corridor that connects the three buildings
should be retained. If the corridor is enclosed,
infill within its arched window openings should be
transparent and maintain the appearance of an open
corridor. Refer to New Architecture Guideline N4 for
this Parcel.
A.5
Building 93 has several existing additions
incompatible with the character of the historic building

in its back. The Master Plan shows their removal and
removal of these additions is encouraged.
A.6 Additions should be limited to the original rear
elevations of the historic buildings and should be
designed and sited to maintain the symmetry of both
the rear elevation and the building footprint.
District o
Precinct
Maximu
Minimum
Open Sp
Landsca
Architec
Architec
Building
Parking a
Pecan St.
75
R/W
44
75
R/W
60
88
90
R/W
4A
90
2.5
89
10
10
75
R/W
CL
95
60
90
R/W
75
R/ W
93
4B
2.
5
2.
94
10
75
R/W
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
12
5
0. 5
0.
40
100
75
R/W
7
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
5
Park 1
2.
102
5
0.
2.5
2.5
P lan and D esign G uidelines
111M aster
127
0.
5
10
7
R/ 5
W
40
75 W
R/
112
0.
75
R/W
76
R/W
44
40
75
R/W
C
40
Cypress St.
2
44
44
75
W
R/
40
Cypress
Commons
40
92
N
SHA
9
R/ 0
10 W
29
Sycamore St.
MLK
Forecourt
Maple
Quad
10
2.5
60
44
A.7 Additions should be designed and sited so as not to
masonry corridor are discouraged. If a connection must
be visible from the quadrangle.
exceed the height of the corridor, it should be lower
A.8 Additions should be no taller than the lowest

cornice line of the rear wings of the historic building.
A.9 The addition should be set back from the rear wings
of the historic building to allow the original footprint of
the building to remain legible.
is encouraged. However, all rooftop equipment should
be hidden from view from the ground.
New Architecture
Parcel 5 will accommodate two new buildings directly
adjacent to the north and south of Building 92. These
buildings will play an important role in accommodating
the adaptive reuse of the Maple Quadrangle Buildings
for new tenants. They can provide large interior spaces
that cannot be accommodated inside the historic
buildings, such as a conference center for a hotel.
N.1 The new buildings should be compatible with the
Maple Quadrangle Buildings by paying special attention
to massing, proportions, order, fenestration, rhythm,
texture, and ornamentation, particularly on elevations
visible from the west.
N.2 Although the new buildings will differ in footprint,
they should together provide a complementary frame
for Building 92 when viewed from the quadrangle,
Pecan Street, and other points west.
N.3 The height of new buildings should not exceed the
cornice line of the lowest wings of Building 92.
N.4 Physical connections between the new and historic
buildings that exceed the height of the one-story
128
than the height of the cornice line of the side wing of

the historic building. It should be set back from the
faades of the historic buildings and take advantage of
existing openings in the historic building to minimize
the loss of historic fabric. The height and treatment of
connections on either side of Building 92 should ensure
approximate symmetry of the view of Building 92 from
the west.
height and frontage parameters described in the
regulating plan.
Landscape
The Maple Quadrangle is one of the most distinctive
features of the East Campus landscape. Whereas
privacy had been the priority in earlier construction
at Saint Elizabeths, the Maple Quadrangle Buildings
promote visibility between their individual structures.
Adding to the more formal character of the quadrangle,
plantings were designed to frame pedestrian paths and
axial views. While some existing plantings date to the
1930s and 1940s, most are overgrown or deteriorated.
The plantings within the entry court to each building are
particularly overgrown, with many trees, shrubs, and
vines that do not contribute to the historic character of
the landscape.
L.1 The landscape of the Maple Quadrangle should
be rehabilitated to restore its historic character. Refer
to the Saint Elizabeths Historic Resources Inventory
(Maple Quadrangle, p. 50) to identify the historic
character of the landscape.
L.2 New landscaping should frame axial views between
the entrances to Buildings 90 and 93, and from the

quadrangle to the entrance of Building 92.
L.3 Removal of overgrown or invasive vegetation is
encouraged, particularly the invasive plantings within
the entry court to each building.
L.4 Foundation plantings on the quadrangle side of the
historic buildings are discouraged.
L.5 Rehabilitation of the dense, vegetated buffer on
the west side of the quadrangle is encouraged.
L.6
The east-west pedestrian path through the
quadrangle should be retained and restored. Additional

pedestrian paths are encouraged to maintain the
formal, axial character of the space.
and building entrances should be respected and
Figure 2.46: Similar to the landscape show in this historic

photo, the new Maple Quad landscape should be open to
allow views to each building.
restored.
Publically Accessible Open Space: Maple Quad
L.7 The pedestrian paths connecting the quadrangle
L.8
maintain the symmetry of the historic buildings and

associated green spaces as viewed from the quadrangle.
The installation of a ramp or a lift may require a second
ramp or a lift to balance the composition.
L.9 Direct vehicular access from the quadrangle to the
entrances of Buildings 90 and 92 is not encouraged.
L.10 A significant portion of the currently impervious
surfaces may be converted to landscape. Should this
occur, emergency vehicle access should be provided
through paved walking surfaces of proper dimension.
L.11 The Maple Quadrangle should be treated
as a priority location for public art and creative
programming.
The intent of the new Maple Quadrangle is to continue

the original design created in 1932. Central green space
enclosed by the surrounding buildings of 90, 92, and 93
on the east side and buildings 89, 94, and 95 on the
west side. Reminiscent of some of the most cherished
college quadrangles across the country. Similar to
college quadrangles, the Maple Quad is intended
to remain open and covered with grass. Pathways
crossing the quad at key locations may be permitted in
order to respect pedestrian desire lines and supporting
connectivity. Anticipated activities include passive
recreation.
The existing loop road within Maple Quadrangle,
called Maple Square may be retained; however it is
recommended to replace the asphalt with pervious
pavement.
129
S e cto r: MLK
Neighborhood Center
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Neighborhood Center lies
at the southwest corner of the site, and is where the
East Campus will adjoin Congress Heights along MLK
Avenue. It is therefore one of the most critical and
valuable areas of the entire site, and is planned for
Phase One of development. Key goals for this site
are to create viable commercial activity along MLK
Avenue, which anchors the Main Street area; to serve
as a gateway into the East Campus; and to become a
welcoming, vibrant destination.
Sector Urban Design Features
Enhance connections to Congress Heights and

create a neighborhood center.
Promote continuity of existing retail along

MLK into the East Campus, and a strong visual
connection between Sycamore and Dogwood
streets.
Create a vibrant retail, restaurant, and public

corridor along Dogwood Street.
Promote ground-floor transparency along MLK

Avenue and Cypress and Dogwood streets.
Ensure these locations incorporate ground-floor
retail and street-activating uses.
Enhance views along Dogwood Street for

pedestrians and drivers.
Coordinate design decisions with relationships to

adjacent Sectors.
130
Parcel Summary
The MLK Neighborhood Center includes development
of Parcels 7 and 8.

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
MLK
Neighborhood
Center Sector
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
Alabam

0 100 200
400
131
Pa r c e l 7
Parcel Area
3.4 Acres
New Development Pad
3.2 Acres
Area
4 - 7 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Residential, Commercial
Ground Floor Retail
Office
Recommended FAR
specific locations
2.5
Programmed Open Space MLK Plaza
132
Parcel 7
Parcel 7 comprises the new development opportunity
and inviting campus faades along MLK Avenue, while
for the MLK Neighborhood Center Sector. It is intended
fostering an harmonious relationship with the historic
to support mixed-use development with ground-floor
buildings of the Maple Quadrangle Sector, the CT
retail, while providing a lively hub of economic and
Village Sector, and Building 100. The new buildings on
public activity for the entire East Campus. This parcel
Parcel 3 will also define the experience of several key
frames two planned entrances to the campus and
features of the East Campus Master Plan: the southern
should be designed with that in mind. In addition, new
connection between MLK Avenue and the campus,
designs should consider views from across the East
at the MLK Neighborhood Center itself; the curved
Campus and, in particular, the relationship to Building
connection between Sycamore and Dogwood Streets;
100 on the adjacent Parcel 8.
the entrance to the campus along 8th Street; and the

southern boundary between the campus and the
A local, neighborhood grocery store is one possible
adjoining neighborhood of Congress Heights.
tenant envisioned for the ground floor of Parcel 7. With

parking and within walking distance of the surrounding
N.1 Faades visible along MLK will create an image
area, such a store could be a useful and a sustainable
for all new development. The projecting southwest
amenity for both the existing community as well as for
corner of this parcel will be particularly visible to traffic
new residents of the Saint Elizabeths development.
moving in either direction along MLK Avenue, and so

the opportunity for a tower element in this location

New Architecture
The prominence of Parcel 7 within the historic East
Campus provides an opportunity for design creativity
architecture on other parcels within the campus. The
new buildings within Parcel 7 will play a critical role
in the successful redevelopment of the East Campus.
They provide an opportunity to create an attractive
(which is provided in the regulating plan) should be

considered.
N.2 The new buildings should encourage continuous
pedestrian traffic and activity along MLK Avenue,
into the campus via Cypress Street and the MLK
Neighborhood Center, and along Dogwood Street.
They should promote ground-floor retail, signage, and
street-activating uses.
N.3 The north faade of Parcel 7 should be compatible
with the southernmost faade of Parcel 3, as the two
both face Cyprus Street and, together, will define the
entrance to the MLK Neighborhood Center. Important
views to consider include those both east and west
133
75
R/ W
40
75
R/W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
75
R/W
40
SE
a Ave.
m
a
b
la
.
A St
od
o
w
Transit
g
Do
17*
5
5
2.
2.
75
R/W
Open Space
Architecture
Access scale and general

Consideration should be given to2. the
el line

removed
line
to items such as:
Architectural
urban design features
and
should be articulated as if it was
street-facing..
N OT E S
Building Frontage
Number
90
R/ W
Landscape
Parcel 7 willGbeTypical
broadly
visible from Congress
Heights,
Street Section
60
Square

13th Street Section
to items such as:
10
10

Section
A 13th Street
with the historic
character
of Building
100 to the east
Entrances shall align with each other when

compatibility of architectural relationships
directly to
across a street.
the southwest.
Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
Service loading and alley entrances should

intersection as measured from the edge of
height and frontage parameters

described in the
regulating plan.
Luther King Jr. Ave SE for reference only &

not to be considered accurate.
Landscape
L.1
MLK Plaza is proposed to be a neighborhood
along Cypress Street, as well as those internal to the
center connecting Congress Heights to Saint Elizabeths,
space itself.
and providing a retail hub for the campus.
N.4 Faades internal to the campus will be broadly
L.2
visible and should be designed accordingly. Designs
opening onto Cypress Street toward MLK Avenue that
should consider particular views including: south along
invite the community into the development. The design
Sycamore Street; northwest along Dogwood Street;
of paving and plantings should support this objective.
The plaza includes symmetrical public spaces
and northwest through the CT Village.

N.5 Parcel 7 will define the 8th Street campus entrance.
134
L.3
The plaza paving should provide retail frontage
access and allow for caf seating and street trees
In combination with Parcel 10 Special consideration
should help to frame the space. However, the foliage
should be given both to views north along 8th Street
density should be carefully considered to promote
(from outside the campus) and to views southwest
visibility, access, and safety.
along Oak Street (from inside the campus).
Transit
Square
18*

75
R/W
A G
SE
Precinct Areas
D Retail on Two Side Section
a Ave.
Alabam
Street Section
E Sycamore
N.7 Although
not street-facing,
the southwest
Minimum densityedge
range of
Parcel number

17*
0 .5
0 .5
40
and the CT Village

to the southeast.
C Retail on One Side Section

Design Guidelines
St.
od
o
gw
Do
N OT E Sbe compatible
N.6 The new buildings in Parcel 7 should
40
40
Community
Park 2
Transit
Square
90 W
R / 1D0
10
2.
40
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
Street centerline
14
14
2.
2.
11
LEGEND
18*
0.5
10
107
14
15
60
75
R/ W
40
40
106
109
ProposedCommunity
Metro Park 2
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
108
D Entrancce
40
16*
107
5
5
2.
8th St. SE
110
Community
Park 1
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
10
7
R/ 5
W
0.
0.
40
Transit
Square
Existing Wetlands
10
40
111
0.
40
75 W
R/
7
R/ 5
W
G
2.
15
0.5
11
10
0.
106
109
10
110
12
40
10
112
9
R/ 0
W
0.
2.
10
7
R
40
7
10 R 5
/W
5
0. 5
0.
0.
Ma
r
100
75
R/W
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
Park 1
2.5
40
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
i
t
L
n
b
3. R
Luthe
not t
5
5
40
40
Sycamore St.
14

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
Parcel number
MLK
Forecourt

18*


14
29

Design Guidelines
75
R/W
2.5
40
75
R/
D
Maple
Quad
A
B
5
95
A
B
ect to the Master Plan and

removed


ine
10
92
3. Ri
6 0 Luthe
not to
90
R/W
93
2.

2.
5
94

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage

across a street.
4B
Number
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
10
2. Access

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
2. Ac

to items such as:
N OT E S
90
R/ W
CL
60
N OT E S
13th Street Section
el line
75
Retail onR/W
Two Side Section
10
10
17*

13th Street Section
to items such as:
40
90
R/W
18*
A NADveD. S
E ES I G N G U I D E L I N E S
89
Park 2
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Street centerline
40
2.5
Community
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
90
Transit
gw
Square
Do
75
R/ W
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
LEGEND
14
4AA R C H I T E C T U R E
40
107
G
Transit
Square
5
5
2.
10
11
2.
2.
0.5
D Entrancce
2.
88 15C
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
106
109
75
R/W
110
8th
Park 1
40
75
R/W
10
75
R/W
40
112
75 W
R/
Community
2.5
5
Park 1
.
2
111
0.
5
10
Community
Park 1
C
5
2.
2.
7
R/ 5
W
10
109
110
40
Ma
rtin
100
5
0. 5
0.
40
75
R/W
17.5
17.5
102
Lut
he
rK
ing
Jr.
Av
eS
E
40
0.
Cypress St.
2.5
2.5
75
R/W
44
76
R/W
2
44
44
75
W
R/
MLK
Plaza
40
135
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
St. SE
Figure 3.51: Similar to the proposed MLK Plaza, buildings are

set back to create additional civic space along the street in
San Diego, California..
Publically Accessible Open Space: MLK Plaza

Positioned on both sides of the intersection of Cypress
Street and MLK Avenue, MLK Plaza is intended to be
a new neighborhood center of Congress Heights.
New businesses join the established retail along MLK
Avenue, from the Center of Congress Heights, leading
north towards the East Campus. Retail will then turns
into the campus at Cypress Street and locate on the
north and south sides of the plaza.
The buildings facing the plaza should have a noteworthy
design that helps create a sense of place, with a level of
transparency that helps activate the space and enliven
the plaza at night. Pervious paving and landscaping
appropriate for an active retail venue should be
included. This will be a neighborhood gathering place,
with benches, and caf seating.
136
Figure 3.52: Wide, tree-planted sidewalks accommodate

multiple uses in Barcelona, Spain.
Figure 3.53: Perspective Illustration of the MLK Plaza
137
Pa r c e l 8
Parcel Area
2.6 Acres
New Development Pad
0 Acres
Area
2 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Civic/Community
Ground Floor Retail
Not Allowed, See Fig.
Recommended FAR
2.15
0.37
Programmed Open Space Community Park 1
138
Cupola
Brick Chimneys
Highly Articulated Footprint
Complex Roof Forms

Building 100, 1902
Brick chimneys

Highly articulated footprint
Prominent central entrance facing Dogwood

Street
Punched openings with multi-light wood

windows
Overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends

and brackets
Cupolas
139
75
R/ W
40
Community
Park 2
40
75
R/W
40
75
R/W
40
SE
a Ave.
m
a
b
la
.
A St
od
o
w
Transit
g
Do
17*
Square
5
5
2.
2.
St.
od
o
gw
Do
75
R/W
17*
a Ave.
Alabam
Parcel number
75
R/W
A G
18*
10
10
60
90
R/ W
the Saint Elizabeths East Design Guidelines

A 13th Street
Both this building
andSection
the landscapes1.forSee
directly
around it
additional criteria and diagrams pertaining
SE

to items such as:

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
Parcel 8 Design
Guidelines
F Cypress Street Section

Addition andG Modification
N OT E S
Building
100 is included in the intended Phase One
el line

13th Street Section
to items such as:

removed
and entrepreneurship. The centeracross

should
a street. be flexibly
be a minimum distance
of 60 feet from
designed and programmed to accommodate
a range
ofany

line
development and is identified as2.aAccess

center for innovation
Number

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage

the public
activities to support the development
ofright-of-way.
an Innovation

Hub on campus. It should support
the education,
3. Right of Way development
for the redesign of Martin
workforce development, and business
needs for Ward 8 residents, District entrepreneurs,

and local businesses.
Parcel 8
Parcel 8 includes building 100 (The P Building),
which was constructed along with the 1902 Buildings,

and is similar to those buildings in many respects.
A.2 The architecture of the addition should be
Building 100 is included in the anticipated Phase
compatible with the character of the historic building.
One development and is identified as a center for

innovation and entrepreneurship. The center should be
Porches should remain as distinct forms and
flexibly designed and programmed to accommodate
features, and all elevations of porches should remain
a range of activities to support the development of
unobstructed by additions.
an Innovation Hub on campus. The center should

support the education, workforce development, and
business development needs for Ward 8 residents,
District entrepreneurs, and business. Building 100 is
thus one of the few buildings with direct historical and
140
Transit
Square
0 .5
0 .5
40
should be sensitively
programmed and rehabilitated.

Design Guidelines
OT E SWest Campus.
architectural ties to development onNthe
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Transit
Square
90 W
R / 1D0
10
2.
40
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
Street centerline
14
14
2.
2.
11
LEGEND
18*
0.5
10
107
14
15
60
75
R/ W
40
40
106
109
ProposedCommunity
Metro Park 2
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
108
D Entrancce
40
16*
107
5
5
2.
8th St. SE
110
Community
Park 1
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
10
7
R/ 5
W
0.
0.
40
Transit
Square
Existing Wetlands
10
40
111
0.
40
75 W
R/
7
R/ 5
W
G
2.
15
0.5
11
10
0.
106
109
10
110
12
40
10
112
9
R/ 0
W
0.
2.
10
7
R
40
7
10 R 5
/W
5
0. 5
0.
0.
Ma
r
100
75
R/W
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
Park 1
2.5
40
A.3 The porches should be preserved. They were

not originally enclosed, and methods of enclosure
have varied over time. Current enclosures (screens,
windows, masonry) are generally incompatible with
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
i
t
L
n
b
3. R
Luthe
not t
89
2.5
Sycamore St.
10
75
R/W
CL
95
92
60
90
R/W
75
R/ W
2.
93
4B
2.
94
Cypress
Commons
9
R/ 0
10 W
40
60
MLK
Forecourt
10
29
Maple
Quad
10
75
R/W
40
0.
Community
Park 1
0.
.5
10
112
.5
2
5
0. 5
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
40 5
40
100
75
R/W
17.5
17.5
102
5
40
0.
2.5
2.5
75
R/W
44
76
R/W
40
75
R/W
Cypress St.
75 W
R/
111
0.
5
10
Community
Park 1
C
2.
2.
11
7
R/ 5
W
40
10
109
110
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
40
14
75
Community
Park 2
40
8th St. SE
gJ
r. A
ve
SE
2
44
44
75
W
R/
MLK
Plaza
141
a
labam
Figure 3.58: The Public Park will could be planted in a garden

style.
Figure 3.59: The Park adjacent to the community building

(Building 100) could have a wide variety of uses to
accommodate a variety of park users.
the character of the buildings and can be removed if
the porches are to be re-opened.
is encouraged.
A.4 Any new porch enclosures should be transparent
New Architecture
in order to convey the original use and character of
N.1 New architecture within Parcel 8 will be limited
these features, and to maintain their distinction from
to additions to the existing building (see the previous
window openings.
section for relevant design guidelines).
A.5 Additions should be limited to the original rear
Landscape
(east) elevations of the historic buildings and not visible
from Dogwood Street.
Buildings historically consisted of dense and informal
A.6 Additions should be designed and sited to maintain

the symmetry of both the rear elevation and the
building footprint.
A.7 Additions should be designed to allow the buildings
original footprint to remain legible and avoid creating
the effect of infill.
A.8 The height of an addition should not exceed or
142
groupings of large shrubs and trees, which helped to

L.1 New landscaping around the 1902 buildings should
be both informal and dense, in keeping with the
Figure 3.60: Perspective Illustration of the Park at the Community Center (Building 100)

L.4
maintain the symmetry of the building and associated

green space as viewed from Dogwood Street.
Publically Accessible Open Space: Community Park 1

This park will provide ample room to create a lush
experience of flower gardens featuring seasonally
colored trees and flowers, including some grand trees
at the heart of the space. Paved walks and seating areas
with benches will provide neighborhood residents
and workers a quiet place to relax. Additionally,
creative programming opportunities are envisioned
for this space in order to activate it and provide for
an enhanced pedestrian experience leading from the
Congress Heights Metro Station.
143
S e cto r: C a m p u s
I n t e r s e ct i o n
The Intersection Sector lies at the junction of the Maple
Quadrangle, CT Village, MLK Neighborhood Center, and
13th Street sectors, and shares goals and strategies with
all of these areas. A key opportunity and responsibility
of the Intersection Sector is successfully to link the
historic areas of the East Campus with larger-scale new
development along and across 13th Street. This Sector
will also be an area for users of the Innovation Hub,
supporting the interactions between federal, private,
institutional and nonprofit stakeholders, and residents
in entrepreneurial activities.
Ensure the building heights and massing are

sensitive to the surrounding historic structures.
Promote both north-south and east-west porosity

and pedestrian movement across the campus.
Use architectural, landscape, and related

elements to frame and emphasize historic oval
structures.
Respect Building 102 within the context of new

development by decreasing the height of new
buildings closer to the historic structure.
Provide appropriate visual backdrop for views of

CT Village from the west and south.
Promote and enhance views along 13th Street.
Promote/enhance views along Cypress Street and

into future open space along 13th Street.
Maximize utility and minimize negative effects of

service/delivery traffic throughout.
144

all adjacent Sectors.
Parcel Summary
The Intersection Parcel includes Parcels 9 and 12.

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Campus
Intersection
Sector
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
a Ave.,
Alabam
SE

0 100 200
400
145
Pa r c e l 9
Parcel Area
2.0 Acres
New Development Pad
0.96 Acres
Area
5 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Educational Institution
Recommended FAR
specific locations
1.5
146
Figure 3.64: A 1932 Picture of Building 102

Building 102 on Parcel 9 is a 1902 building and
shares many characteristics with that group
(see section on Parcel 4).
Overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends

and brackets
Cupola

Highly articulated footprint
Punched openings with multi-light wood

windows
Parcel 9
Parcel 9 occupies the northeast corner of the CT
Oval and extends along the south side of Cypress
Street. It contains historic Building 102, which has
a plan configuration and orientation unique on the
East Campus. It also includes a buildable lot to the
northeast, at the corner of Cypress and 13th Streets.
New development on this lot will reap the advantages
of this central location and prominent position, and
should respect the multifaceted nature of its situation.
Components of the Innovation Hub in this parcel could
include research, development, and product assembly.

A.2 The ground floor on parcel 9 should have active
uses and windows to ensure transparency.
147
75
R/W
40
Parcel number

Building
102.
N OT E S
ne
arcel line
ubject to the Master Plan and

nes

removed
velopment pads with WMATA

ck line

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
2. Access
Entrances
shall aligndirection
with each other when
N.2 Preserve views along Oak Street
in each
ng Number
to items such as:
with the historic

of the CT Village and
Street Section
G Typicalcharacter

13th Street Section
to items such as:
pads for new construction
District ofthe
Columbia
Comprehensive
Plan
and across
entire
CT Village.
Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
Landscape
across a street.
King Jr. and

Ave SE informal
for reference only &
Buildings historically consisted ofLuther
dense
groupings of large shrubs and trees, which helped to

A.3 The porches on building 102 should be preserved
as visually distinctive elements. The porches were
not originally enclosed and methods of alterations
to enclose them have not been consistent over time.

Current enclosures (screens, windows, masonry)
L.1
are generally incompatible with the character of the
should be both informal and dense in keeping with the
buildings and can be removed if the porches are to be
re-opened.
A.4 For at least 30 feet from any point on Building 102,
the height of the addition should remain below the
height of the eaves of Building 102.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 9 will occur at the
center of the East Campus and will define he intersection
of 13th and Cypress streets as well as the entrance to
the adjoining plaza. To the extent possible, Parcel 9
should work in concert with its neighboring buildings
to establish a coherent urban form and identity. It
will form the eastern visual edge of the CT Village and
should be designed accordingly. Consideration should
be given to the direct relationship to the existing CT
148
2.
E Sycamore Street Section

N.1 The architecture
of Parcel 9 should be compatible

90
R/ W

14
17*
60
See the Saint Elizabeths East Design Guidelines

13th Street Section
Street in eachA direction
and rooftop 1.for
views
across the
additional criteria and diagrams pertaining

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor

18*
10
10
entire CT Village.

Design Guidelines
18*
N OT E S
Village buildings as well as to the views
along Oak
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
14
40
40
Street centerline
Community
Park 2
40
75
R/W
A G
2.
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
LEGEND
75
R/ W
108
Transit
Square
SE
a Ave.
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
o
Square
D
40
107
G
14
2.
2.
10
11
5
5
2.
15
0.5
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
106
109
110
New landscaping around the 1902 Buildings

L.4
maintain the symmetry of the buildings and associated

green space as viewed from Dogwood Street.
L.5 Along Oak Street, the build-to line is set back
from the right-of-way in order to provide generous
foundation plantings between the back of the curb and
the building face.
3.
Lu
no
90
89
10
10
75
R/W
CL
95
92
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON PARCEL 6

SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS OF
BUILDING 92 FROM THE WEST.
60
90
R/W
93
2.
10
9
R/ 0
W
10
112
7
R/ 5
W
G
111
40
0.
0.
7
R/ 5
W
Community
2.5
5
Park 1
.
2
G
0.
40
75 W
R/
0.
5
40
12
10
2.5
2.5
75
R/W
13
60
10
75
R/W
40
0.
0.
5
0. 5
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
.5
5
102
100
44
44
40
75
R/W
75
W
R/
Cypress St.
10
9
R/ 0
10 W
2.
94
Existing W
4B
Future Utility Pad
Cypress
Commons
60
29
Maple
Quad
10
Tra
Squ
2.
2.
11
40
107
75
R/W
75
R/W
40
Community
Park 2
M aster P lan and
14
40
108
40
15
0 .5
10
7
R/ 5
W
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
10
106
109
110
75
R/W
Prop
Me
Entra
Community
Park 1
wo
g
Do
0.5
0.5
0
D esign G4uidelines
75
R/W
G
149
Pa r c e l 12
Parcel Area
1.6 Acres
New Development Pad
1.6 Acres
Area
7 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office
Recommended FAR
specific locations
3.5
150
40

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
ine
Number
93
0.
10
75
R/W
40
75
R/
40
N OT E S
3. Ri
Luthe
not to
Future Utility Pad
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
13
12
10
0.
2.5
2.5
Existing Wetlands
9
R/ 0
10 W
5
0. 5
0.

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
60
2.
2.
102
Cypress
Commons
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b

2.ON
Access
NEWEastCONSTRUCTION
PARCEL 6
1. See the Saint Elizabeths
Design Guidelines
13th Street Section
for additionalSHALL
criteria and
diagrams
pertaining WITH VIEWS OF
NOT
INTERFERE
Entrances
shall align with each other when
to items such as:
BUILDING 92 FROMacross
THEa street.
WEST.
Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
44
40
75
R/W
75
W
R/
Cypress St.
112
0.
7
R/ 5
W
40
111
0.
40
75 W
R/
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
0.
5
40
90 G
R/W
10
60
2. Ac
92


removed
CL
60
N OT E S
to items such as:
13th Street Section
10
10
90
R/ W
17*
10
60
10
10
18*
10
10
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
9
R/ 0
W
5
5
2.
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Parcel number
18*
40
40

Design Guidelines
14
el line
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
Square
Do
75
R/ W
Community
Park 2
2.
5
5
2.
8th St. SE
Maple
Quad
107
10
A R C H I T E C T U R E A NADveD. S
40
108
Transit
Square
14
90
R/ W
Street centerline
14
10
60
LEGEND
90
0.5
11
15
75
R/W
C
2.
10
D Entrancce
106
109
75
R/W
40
110
3R / W7 5
75
R/W
44
St.
8th
Park 1
10
60
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
Community
Park 1
2.
2.
11
Transit
Square
St.
d
oo
w
g
107
G
15
40
75
5
5
2.
10
0 .5
2.
7
R/ 5
W
106
109
110
151
Transi
Parcel 12
Parcel 12 lies directly between the CT Village and 13th
Street, and provides one of the larger opportunities
for development on the East Campus. Proposed uses
within this parcel consist of residential and commercial
office. As this site is relatively regular in shape, it offers
a particular opportunity to provide parking without
visual disruption to neighboring buildings or open
spaces.
The development of Parcel 12 does not incorporate
historic resources. Therefore, no guidance is provided
for addition or modification.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 12 will compose
a critical link between the historic CT Village and new
developments around the Congress Heights Metrorail
station and along 13th Street. As these areas will vary
significantly in both scale and density, designs for Parcel
12 will need to consider and manage the transitions
between them and, in particular, the visibility of the
west face, which will form the eastern edge of the CT
Village.
152
N.1 Along with new buildings on Parcels 9 and 15,

Parcel 12 will form the eastern visual edge of the CT
Village and should be designed so the building heights
of the new development step down to the scale of the
low-rise historic structures.
N.2 New buildings should incorporate entrances on
the sides facing the CT Oval road and 13th Street.
N.3 The use of photovoltaic systems or structures over
parking areas is encouraged, especially if they can be
screened from view from the ground.
Landscape
L.1 On Oak Street, the build-to line is set back from the
right-of-way in order to provide generous foundation
plantings between the back of the curb and the building
face.
Figure 3.69: Perspective Illustration of the East Campus Looking South
Perspective Illustration of the MLK Forecourt
153
S e cto r: 13t h St r e e t
The 13th Street Sector includes areas to the east of 13th
Street, along the ravine separating the historic East
Campus from the new hospital. As there are no historic
buildings and few roads in this area, the development
Suitland Parkway.
across 13th Street at all intersections.
sites are relatively large and the opportunities relatively

flexible. However, it is important that all development
have a dignified character, be welcoming to the public,
and encourage activity along 13th Street.
In addition, new development is encouraged to
promote connection to and awareness of the ravine
landscape, so that the verdant character of the present
Saint Elizabeths Campus continues to be present along
this built-up street. At the north end of 13th Street,
where new buildings are adjacent to historic ones,
particular attention should be paid to the scale and
detail of architectural relationships.
Create an active and safe street that fosters

pedestrian mobility.
Provide for a variety of development uses and

scales along the ravine.
Create paths and views between the historic

campus and ravine landscape.
Minimize negative visual impacts on any and all

historic areas west of this sector.
Promote and protect views to and across the

Building 92 cupola and along 13th Street.
Encourage movement and potential future retail

along 13th Street.
Consider visual and spatial significance of

potential future approach across ravine from
154
Provide safe and attractive surface connections
Provide for adequate and non-conflicting use of

hospital access road from 13th Street.

adjacent Sectors.
Sector Parcel Summary

The 13th Street Sector includes Parcels 6 and 13.

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
13th Street
Sector
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
Alabam

0 100 200
400
155
Pa r c e l 6
Parcel Area
4.0 Acres
New Development Pad
3.57 Acres
Area
8 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office
Recommended FAR
specific locations
4.0
Programmed Open Space Cypress Commons
156

40
40
Design Guidelines
Parcel number
44
Pecan St.
75
R/W
75
R/
40
N OT E S
A
B
N OT E S

removed
88

4A
ine
90
R/W

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
3. Ri
Luthe
not to

6
10
10
75
R/W
CL
95
92
60
90
R/W
75
R/W
2.
10
9
R/ 0
W
0.
13
60
10
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
12
0.
0.
5
10
7
R/ 5
W
40
112
10
5
40
0.
40
75 W
R/
75
R/W
Figure
3.73: Regulating plan focusing on Parcel 6.
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
Park 1
111
2.5
75
R/W
5
0. 5
0.
40
100
102
5
0.
2.5
2.5
75
R/ W
44
44
40
75
R/W
75
W
R/
Cypress St.
10
9
R/ 0
10 W
2.
94
Future Utility Pad
Cypress
Commons
93
4B
E
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON
SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH
BUILDING 92 FROM T
60
29
Sycamore St.
Maple
Quad
40
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
89
2.5
40
2. Ac

across a street.

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
2.5
2. Access
60
90
Number
el line
90
R/ W

to items such as:

13th Street Section
to items such as:
60
17*
13th Street Section
18*
10
10
2.
40

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
75
R/W
75
R/W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Street centerline
14
5
5
2.
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
LEGEND
Community
Park 2
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
Square
Do
75
R/ W
108
Transit
Square
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
40
107
18*
14
2.
10
11
14
0.5
2.
15
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
106
109
110
D Entrancce
8th
Park 1
0.
7
R/ 5
W 157
G
Parcel 6
Parcel 6 sits across 13th Street from Building 92, the
central building in the historic Maple Quadrangle
complex. This important relationship, along with the
ravine directly to the east, defines the key opportunities
of Parcel 6: to allow for high-density development on
the Saint Elizabeths East Campus, to promote activity
along 13th Street, and to help connect the campus to
the green space of the ravine.
Figure 3.74: Public space precedent for Cypress Commons.

on addition or modification.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 6 will define the
northeast corner of the redeveloped East Campus and
will have significant relationships with the adjacent
Maple Quadrangle, the 13th Street Corridor, and the
wooded ravine to the east.
N.1 Massing and west-facing elevations should consider
the visual significance of Building 92 and its prominent
cupola for views from the west and, in particular, from
the Maple Quadrangle and MLK Forecourt. Related
perspectives should be studied as part of the design
review for this parcel.
N.2 The new buildings in Parcel 6 should be compatible
with both the buildings along 13th Street and the
historic buildings in Maple Quadrangle.
N.3 Symmetry along the east-west axis of Redwood
Street should be considered in the massing and design
of new buildings.
158
N.4 Since Parcel 6 comprises an especially long block,
Publically Accessible Open Space: Cypress Commons
adjacent faades should be varied and segmented to
Positioned as the central feature where Cypress Street
give the illusion of multiple buildings in this location.
terminates at 13th Street, Cypress Commons is intended

to be a quiet, neighborhood-oriented open space. The
Landscape
commons will be surrounded by residential and office
Parcel 6 should incorporate a public plaza aligned
uses. Figure 2.11 shows a potential, meandering, multi-
with the eastern portion of Cypress Street. This plaza
use trail to be an integrally designed element of the
should be at the grade level of the intersection of
park connecting the ravine which runs east of campus.
Cypress and 13th Streets, or accessible from that level
This potential trail could connect Cypress Commons
by appropriately-scaled stairs and Americans with
to the existing multiuse trail which runs along Suitland
Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant devices.
Parkway.
L.1 Design the plaza with a minimum dimension of 75
The design and implementation of the multiuse trail
feet, a minimum area of 0.5 acres, and open to the
would have to be approved by all District Agencies
ravine on its eastern edge. Ensure this public space
as well as landowners. The trail would have to be
provides opportunities for public art.
designed around existing wetlands and other significant
L.2 Provide new landscaping along 13th Street
ecological features.
that is unobtrusive and does not detract from new

development.
L.3 The addition of an alley system for Parcel 6 is
encouraged to reduce multiple curb-cuts along 13th
Street.
L.4
Coordinate with the new hospital entrance
connecting to 13th Street between Parcels 6 and 13 to

ensure consistency of operations and access..
159
Pa r c e l 13
Parcel Area
2.9 Acres
New Development Pad
2.9 Acres
Area
8 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office
Recommended FAR
specific locations
4.0

Coordinate development
with WMATA
infrastructure
160

40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
40
Design Guidelines
18*
14
40

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
Parcel number
14
75
R/ W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Street centerline
75
R/
40
A
B

removed
ine
Number
90
R/ W

to items such as:
2. Access

60
Existing Wetlands
13
0.
40 5
60
9
R/ 0
W
12
7
R/ 5
W
40
0.
G
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
106
11
16*
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
109
112
5
40
10
0.
10
10
75
R/W
Metro Air
Shaft
13
th
St.
10
/W
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
10
9
R/ 0
10 W
60
2.
2.
44
75
40
Future Utility Pad
Cypress
Commons
NEW ST ELIZABETHS
HOSPITAL
10
90
R/W

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage

across a street.

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
NEW
CONSTRUCTION ON PARCEL
6
Architecture
SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS
OF
BUILDING 92 FROM THE WEST.
Building Frontage
10
60
N OT E S
10
18*
N OT E S
13th Street Section
el line
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
10
17*

13th Street Section
to items such as:
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
Square
Do
40
75
R/W
LEGEND
Community
Park 2
10
5
5
2.
5
5
2.
2.
8th St. SE
108
Transit
Square
14
107
90
R/ W
0.5
10
11
60
15
2.
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
D Entrancce
106
109
75
R/W
110
8th
Park 1
0 .5
10
15
M aster P lan and
Transit
Square
60
90 W
R/ 10
10
D esign G uidelines
161
18*
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
3. Ri
Luthe
not to
Parcel 13
Parcel 13 is similar to Parcel 6 except that it has no direct
N.1 New buildings should encourage continuous
adjacency with any historic buildings. It therefore offers
pedestrian traffic and activity along 13th Street.
a similar set of urban and development opportunities,
but in a slightly less constrained context.
encouraged.
Design of buildings on Parcel 6 and Parcel 13
must accommodate the functional needs of the
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA)
and its operation of the underground rail tunnel and

supporting facilities. The air shaft shown in Figure 3.77
may be moved and/or incorporated into the design of
a proposed structure. The District will seek to relocate
and incorporate the stormwater management pond
into the larger stormwater system for the site. New
construction adjacent to WMATA facilities will be
coordinated with its Office of Joint Development and
Adjacent Construction (JDAC).
any historic resources and no guidance on addition or
modification is required.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 13 will be integral
to a consistent urban experience along 13th Street,
from the Congress Heights Metro Center in the south
toward the intersection of 13th and Cypress streets
further north.
162
N.3 New development should incorporate transitoriented development principles and be closely
coordinated with WMATAs station access study for the
Congress Heights Metrorail station.
Landscape
L.1 The addition of an alley system for Parcel 6 is
encouraged to reduce multiple curb-cuts along 13th
Street.
L.2
Coordinate with the new hospital entrance
connecting to 13th Street between Parcels 6 and 13 to

ensure consistency of operations and access..
Figure 3.78: Perspective Illustration of the 13th Street Corridor with the Maple Quad in the Foreground
163
S e cto r: C T V i l l a g e
New development in this area will be relatively small-
rehabilitated CT complex.
scale and low-density, but the CT Village Sector does

offer a prime opportunity to integrate new public uses
Connect Maple Quadrangle and Neighborhood
within the historic campus. Possible new uses for the
Center (Metro) Sector retail areas along Dogwood
historic buildings within this Sector include education/
Street.
community college, residential, and small office.
Provide connections across Dogwood Street for
The Sectors future character should be largely driven
campus entries at Malcolm X Avenue and 8th,
by the architecture and landscape character of the
11th and 12th streets.
existing CT Village and changes or new developments

should be compatible with this objective.
Retain the historic oval landscape.
Retain historic buildings and unique layout/

relationships of CT Village.
Enable a vibrant retail, restaurant and public
Heights.
Enhance utility and historic uniqueness of interior

CT courtyards.
Reuse existing brick corridors and/or retain traces

of same.

adjacent Sectors.
Parcel Summary
The CT Village Sector includes Parcels 10, 11, and 14.
corridor along Dogwood Street.
Build new construction at a scale appropriate to

its position between the CT Village and Congress
164
Consider axial and oblique views to and through

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Cypress St.
CT Village
Sector
13
th
St.
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
Alabam

0 100 200
400
165
Pa r c e l 10
Parcel Area
0.7 Acres
New Development Pad
0.59 Acres
Area
4 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Residential
Ground Floor Retail
Recommended FAR
specific locations
1.5

Relocation of Building 99
166
75
R/
N OT E S
el line

13th Street Section
to items such as:

removed
40
5
0. 5
0.
60
9
R/ 0
10 W
7
2. Access
R/ 5
W
G
across a street.
0 . should
Service loading and alley entrances
5 any
be G
a minimum distance of 60 feet from
0.
40 5
3. Ri
Luthe
not to


112
0.
40
111
0.
5
10
Community
Park 1
C
2.
2.
11
7
R/ 5
W
40
10
109
110
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
40
75
W
Community
Park 2
40
8th St. SE
ine

100
75
/W
R
7
.5
Loading and parking access areas1 7
Suggested Building Setback Location 5
8
17.
5
Community
2.
5
Park 1
.
2
75 W
R/
r. A
ve
SE

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
0.

Number
40
102
75
R/W
C

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
40
75
R/W
2. Ac
10
2.5
40
10
40
75
R/W
2.5
75
R/W
44
76
R/W
2
44
N OT E S
to items such as:
13th Street Section
Cypress St.

Cypress
Commons
90
R/ W
2.
17*
14
18*
60
Transit
Square
44
18*
75
W
R/
MLK
Plaza

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
Parcel number
od
wo
g
Do
93
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
94

Design Guidelines
75
R/ W
Community
Park 2
40
Street centerline
14
5
5
2.
8th
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
4B
60
2.
107
LEGEND
40
108
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
2.
8th St. SE
10
90
10
a
m
W
a
10 R /
AlabSt.
2.
2.
75
R/ W
Transit
Square
14
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
11
92
15
0.5
95
40
10
D Entrancce
106
109
110
Park 1
14
aA
Alabam
167
Figure 3.83: A cross-section showing the proposed new buildings on Parcel 10 across from Parcel 11.
Parcel 10
Parcel 10 is situated along the southwestern edge of
the campus, between Dogwood Street and Congress
Heights. It marks entrances to the campus along both
Malcolm X Avenue and 8th Street/Oak Street. Care
should be taken to ensure that new buildings on this
parcel are compatible with existing historic conditions
to the north and south.
The development of Parcel 10 will entail the relocation
and reuse of historic Building 99.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 10 will compose
a portion of the southern edge of the redeveloped
168
East Campus and mediate between the adjacent

areas of Congress Heights, the CT Village, and the
MLK Neighborhood Center. In addition to being
architecturally and programmatically compatible with
all of those areas and with the relocated Building 99,
this parcel will help to define important entries to
campus along 8th Street and Malcolm X Avenue.
N.1
The architecture of Parcel 10 should be
compatible with the adjacent CT Village to the north

and the adjacent neighborhood of Congress Heights
to the south, as well as with the relocated Building 99.
Materials, window proportions, eave heights and other
elements of the new architecture can complement the
older structures.
N.2
Since Parcel 10 will most likely consist of
townhouses, the following strategies are encouraged:
Figure 3.84: An early aerial view of the CT Village.
Establish and adhere to a single, consistent design,

in which basic elements (e.g., parapet profile,
fenestration, entrance configuration and location)
remain consistent, although specific details may
vary.
Vary the depth of the faade and/or parapet

line of each building, including a defined top, as
described in the site-wide architectural guidelines.
Employ one primary faade material and color.
N.3 In combination with Parcel 7, Parcel 10 will define

the 8th Street campus entrance. Special consideration
should thus be given both to views north along
8th Street (from outside the campus) and to views
southwest along Oak Street (from inside the campus).
169
Pa r c e l 11
Parcel Area
10.9 Acres
New Development Pad
0 Acres
Area
2 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Residential, Commercial/
Innovation, Educational
Ground Floor Retail
Institution
Recommended FAR
specific locations
0.66
Programmed Open Space Community Park 2 and 3

Relocation of Building 88
170
Central Entrance
Enclosed Porches
Hipped Roofs
Ornamental Metal Window

Grills
Symmetry in Elevation and

Plan
Connecting Corridor

CT-3, Building 106, 1938
H-shaped footprints
Hipped roofs
CT-Kitchen and Cafeteria, Building 109, 1933
Prominent central entrances from the oval to

each building
Red brick exterior walls
Red ceramic roof tiles
Punched openings with multi-light metal

windows
Ornamental metal window grilles
Enclosed porches on the ends of each side wing
Masonry corridors connecting the residential

buildings to each other and the central kitchen
Parcel 11 Secondary Historic Built Resources:

Corridor between Buildings 105-112-109
Corridor between Buildings 107-109
Corridor between Buildings 108-110-109
Corridor between Buildings 111-109
171
10
11
107
and 112) within this sector include an educational use,

such as a community college or university presence,
LEGEND
small office spaces to support business development

Street centerline
or entrepreneurship, or residential.
The existing
FEMA Parcel:
Subject be
to thereused
Master Plan and
kitchen facility in the center building
could
Design Guidelines
for culinary purposes, such as a commercial

kitchen or
Parcel number
14
incubator.

18*

14
Community
Park 2
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
Existing historic building to be preserved7&5 relocat
W
R / be
G
removed
Design Guidelines
14
SE
a Ave.
Alabam
Parcel number


18*

14


removed


A.2 Adaptive reuse of the enclosed corridors is strongly

encouraged.
A.3 If porches are converted to conditioned spaces
and glazing is introduced into the enclosures, new
porch enclosures should remain distinct from the
buildings windows.
A.4
New accessible entrances and exterior patio
features should be created to accommodate potential

retail uses along Dogwood Street. Solutions for such
features should repeat across all the buildings of the CT
Village.
A.5 New entrances within the side wings of the CT
buildings should be accommodated within existing
porch fenestration. The treatment of entry doors and
display windows should be consistent with adjacent
porch enclosures, be compatible with the character
172
N OT E S

1. See the Sa
13th Street Section
for addition
to items suc
75
R/ W
75
R/W
Street centerline
contains the Continued Treatment (CT) Village. Possible

uses of the historic buildings (106, 107, 108, 110, 111,
40
LEGEND
40
Parcel 11 sits inside the Dogwood/Oak Street oval, and
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
Parcel 11
8th St. SE
40
40
2.
2.
10
0.5
7
R/ 5
W
of the historic building, and maintain maximum

transparency.
A.6 Signage and awnings should be consistent across
all buildings.
A.7 New connections to or between buildings should
avoid or minimize new penetrations in the historic
building wall, and their location should be limited to
the width of the first-story porch fenestration where
entry occurs.
A.8 Awnings at or above the arched second-story
porch fenestration should be avoided.
A.9 Additions should be designed and sited to maintain
the symmetry of both the rear elevation and the
building footprint.
A.10 The height of additions should not exceed or
District
Precinc
Maximu
Minimu
Open Sp
Landsca
Architec
Architec
Building
Parking
R/
Commons
93
10
13
60
9
R/ 0
W
12
0.
10
112
G
40
111
0.
40
75 W
R/
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
7
R/ 5
W
0.
5
40
10
0.
10
75
R/W
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
17.5
8
17.5
Community
2.5
Park 1
2.5
5
0. 5
0.
40
100
5
/W
102
5
0.
2.5
2.5
75
R/W
40
75
R/W
44
44
Cypress St.
75
W
R/
10
9
R/ 0
W
10
60
2.
2.
94
Existin
4B
10
C
5
2.
2.
G
40
107
75
R/W
40
Community
Park 2
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
75
R/W
108
40
15
0 .5
10
11
7
R/ 5
W
40
10
106
109
110
14
e. SE
v
A
a
Alabam
75
R/W
Community
Park 1
g
Do
0.5
0.5
40
75
R/W
G
N OT E S
13th Street Section
173
1. See the Saint Elizabeths E

for additional criteria and
to items such as:
Sparse foundation plantings occupy the front courts

of each residential building, along with shrubs framing
the building entrances. Much of the original planting
material has been removed or is deteriorated. Within
the interior courts, much or the original green space
has been paved to provide additional parking and
loading for the buildings.
L.2 Perimeter trees should be restored to reinforce the
oval.
Figure 3.89: The second Community Park can offer a bucolic
setting for respite from the busy Dogwood retail street.
L.3 The circulation paths leading from the oval to the

buildings should be restored.
A.11 Additions to the historic buildings within the CT
L.4 New building approaches should not disrupt the
Oval will be permitted along the interior courtyards.
historic approach to the front entrances.
A.12 Commercial access to both main and basement
L.5 If enclosed corridors are proposed for demolition,
levels should be explored, but with sensitivity to the
their former footprint should be represented in the
historic building fabric.
treatment of the landscape through hardscaping,
New Architecture
plantings, and/or reuse of the foundations of the

corridors as landscape features.
New architecture within Parcel 11 will be limited to

additions to the existing buildings (see the previous
Publically Accessible Open Space: Community Park 2
section for relevant design guidelines).
Similar to Community Park 1, Community Park 2 is a

centrally-located community park where the entire
Landscape
campus can come together for passive activities.
The primary landscape feature of the CT Complex is
Community Park 2 is also proximate to the retail street
its oval shape, which is defined by Oak and Dogwood
along Dogwood and provides a bucolic contrast to the
streets. Within the oval are courts defined by the CT
paved public plaza at the Metro.
buildings and their connecting corridors. Plantings

within these spaces include scattered specimen trees,
as well as a more formal configuration of street trees.
174
Figure 3.90: Perspective Illustration of the CT Village with Maple Quad in the Foreground
175
Pa r c e l 14
Parcel Area
1.8 Acres
New Development Pad
1.72 Acres
Area
4 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Residential
Ground Floor Retail
Recommended FAR
specific locations
1.5
Programmed Open Space 11th Street Plaza
176
75
R/
40
2.

N OT E S
2. Access
0.

across a street.
10
12

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
10
3. Ri
Luthe
not to
0.
7
R/ 5
W
G
5
40
112

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
10
9
R/ 0
W
60
40
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
13
60
40
75
R/W
10
/ WF
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
2. Ac

to items such as:
111
G
0.
Number
N OT E S
7
R/ 5
W
Existing W
90
R/ W
40
ine 2 . 5
40
0.
Community
Park 1
75 W
R/
.5

40
60
13th Street Section

13th Street Section
to items such as:
10
10
17*
0.

removed
75
R/W
2.5
2.5
.5
0.
18*
10
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
75
8th St. SE
R/W
44
el line

14
40
75
102
R/W
18*
Ave. SEor urban design 7 D

maarchitectural
General location
labafor
A
R 5E
Parcel number
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
Square
Do
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed

Design Guidelines
Transit
Square
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
5
5
2.
2.
2.
Cypress St.
14
100
Community
Park 2
Street centerline
75
R/ W
44
108
75
W
R/
LEGEND
2.
10
40
107
94
14
.5
Existing historic building to 0
be preserved
.5
Existing historic building to be0
preserved & relocated

Community
Park 1
11
2.
2.
Tra
Squ
G
40
107
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
75
R/W
40
Community
Park 2
40
8th St. SE
75
R/W
108
40
15
0 .5
10
7
R/ 5
W
40
10
106
109
110
14
e. SE
v
A
a
Alabam
75
R/W
Prop
Me
Entra
10
11
10
0.5
5
5
2.
93
Commons
15
5 9
R7 / W0
1 0 R/ W
40
7
R/ 5
W
4B
106
109
110
D Entrancce
8th
Park 1
wo
g
Do
0.5
0.5
40
75
R/W
G
N OT E S
M aster
13th Street
SectionP lan
and D esign 1.
G See
uidelines
177 East D
the Saint Elizabeths
for additional criteria and diag

to items such as:
toward MLK Plaza further north.

encouraged.
N.2
Buildings on Parcel 14 should have active uses
on both Alabama Avenue and Dogwood Street on the

ground floors. It is encouraged that retail uses on the
Dogwood side be no more than 40 feet deep, allowing
sufficient depth on the Alabama side to accommodate
Figure 3.94: The 11th Street Plaza is intended to have an
intimate feel through its size and tree canopy providing a
sense of enclosure.
Parcel 14
Parcel 14 sits along the southwestern edge of the
campus, and a portion of it lies directly between
Dogwood Street and Alabama Avenue. It marks
entrances to the campus along Malcolm X Avenue and
11th and 12th streets. As the site itself is quite small,
development is likely to be of a private residential
nature. Care should be taken to ensure that new
buildings on this parcel are compatible with existing
historic conditions to the north and south.
historic resources and therefore no guidance addition
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 14 will be integral
to a consistent urban experience along 13th Street,
from the Congress Heights Metro Center in the south
residential uses on the ground floor.
Landscape
L.1 The 11th Street Plaza should be an intimate space,
rectangular in shape, and connect the inner campus to
the community, both visually and physically.
L.2 Retail uses should line the edges of the plaza to
enliven the public experience.
L.3 Plantings should support views across the space
and pedestrian connections to both Alabama Avenue
and Dogwood Street.
L.4 Paving should blend seamlessly from the two
adjacent sidewalks into the plaza to invite community
members and visitors to use the space.
Publically Accessible Open Space: 11th Street Plaza
Located where the former 11th Street intersected with
Alabama Avenue, the plaza will provide a neighborhood
gathering place featuring retail frontage along its east
side. The plaza will feature a blend of hardscape and
greenscape elements, including patterned paving,
lawn panels, tree bosques, benches, caf seating, and
a potentially a fountain or sculptural piece as a central
anchor.
178
Figure 3.95: Perspective Illustration of the retail street (Dogwood) leading towards CT Village
179
S e cto r: C o n g r e s s
Heights Transit Center
The Congress Heights Transit Center Sector lies at the
southeast corner of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
and incorporates the existing Congress Heights
space at Dogwood and 13th streets.
Street and on neighbors across Alabama Avenue.
Metrorail station. As a major point of entry to campus,

and home of some of the largest available development
Provide high visibility of the campus entry toward
sites, it presents significant opportunities for economic
approaches along Alabama Ave and 13th Street,
development and the enhancement of public life.
and promote attractive views west toward CT

Village and north along 13th Street.
The streets and other public spaces in this Sector

should be vibrant, lively, and welcoming. Their role is
encourage people to experience the rest of the Saint

Elizabeths East Campus.
accommodate the functional needs of the Washington

Transit
Authority
(WMATA)
and
its operation of the underground rail tunnel and

may be moved and/or incorporated into the design of
a proposed structure. The District will seek to relocate
construction adjacent to WMATA facilities shall be

coordinated with its Office of Joint Development and
Adjacent Construction (JDAC).
Create a welcoming campus entry at Alabama
Avenue and the Congress Heights Metrorail
station.
Encourage connections from Congress Heights

along both 12th and 13th streets.
Provide and frame a significant exterior public
Provide safe and attractive surface connections

across 13th Street from Metrorail station.
Provide for adequate and non-conflicting

functionality of hospital access road from 13th
and incorporate the stormwater management pond

into the larger stormwater system for the site. New
Anticipate possible effects of future development

on and adjacent to Metro parcel.
supporting facilities. The air shaft shown in Figure 3.77
Provide welcoming and comfortable campus

entries to/from Congress Heights.
Design of buildings on parcel 6 and 13 must

Metropolitan
Minimize impact of delivery/service requirements

along Dogwood and 13th streets.
to promote activity and development in the Sector and
180
Consider impacts of scale on CT Village across Oak
Street.

adjacent Sectors.
Parcel Summary
The Congress Heights Transit Center includes
development Parcels 15, 16 ,and 17.
Future development on Parcel 18 will have to conform
to these guidelines as well as coordination with WMATA
on planning efforts being conducted at the Congress
Heights Metrorail station.

1 Story
6 Stories
2 Stories
7 Stories
4 Stories
8 - 9 Stories
5 Stories
Pecan St.
Sycamore Dr.
Cypress St.
13
th
St.
Congress Heights
Transit Center
Sector
r.
dD
oo
w
g
Do
SE
a Ave.,
Alabam

0 100 200
400
181
Pa r c e l 15
Parcel Area
4.0 Acres
New Development Pad
3.92 Acres
Area
7 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office, Hospitality
Recommended FAR
specific locations
3.5
Programmed Open Space Transit Plaza
182
2.
Community
Park 2
Future Utility Pad

40

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
Parcel number
9
R/ 0
W
40
7
R/ 5
W
0.
106

16*
60
15
0 .5
5
2.
5
2.
G
40
107
75
R/W
40
Community
Park 2
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
40
108
D
14
e. SE
v
A
a
Alabam
75
R/W
75
R/W
90 W
R/ 10
10
18*
Transit
Square
10
11
3. Ri
Luthe
not to

across a street.
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
109
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
5
40
2. Ac
10

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
2. Access

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
10
13
60
12
0.
10
9
R/ 0
10 W
112
10
40
0.
Number
75
R/W
13
th
St.
0.
40 5
features (refer to Design7Guidelines)
5
R /Priority
Creative Programming
Area
W
G
Loading and 0
parking access areas
.5
N OT E S
10
ine
60

removed
13th Street Section
NEW ST ELIZABETHS
HOSPITAL

to items such as:

13th Street Section
to items such as:
10
2.
2.
44
75
W
R/
N OT E S
GUIDELINES
90
R/ W

Existing
Wetlands
18*
60
75
R/W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed

Design Guidelines
el line
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
Transit
Square
17*
75
R/W
40
Cypress
Right-of-way/parcel lineCommons
75
R/ W
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
90
Street centerline
R/W
14
75
R/
5
5
2.
5
5
2.
2.
LEGEND
18*
AlabSt.
od
o
w
g
Do
40
107
60
14
0.5
10
Transit
NEW CONSTRUCTION 1ON
0 PARCEL 6
14 Square
11 NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS OF
D
SHALL
E ES I G N
G THE
10
BUILDING 92 FROM
WEST.
ama
10
15
40
40
7
R/ 5
W
10
D Entrancce
106
109
40
110
8th
Park 1
10
St.
d
oo
w
g
Do
17*
Transit
Square
A
10
10
60
90
R/W
0.5
0.5
40
75
R/W
G
183
Parcel 15
Parcel 15 is situated directly to the west of the
station and the East Campus, establishing a symbolic
Congress Heights Metrorail station and is the largest
and a commercial center near Alabama Avenue, and
development site on the entire Saint Elizabeths East
contributing substantial parking capacity to the whole
Campus. Its west side sits adjacent to the CT Village and
development.
frames entrances to the campus along both Dogwood

Street and 13th Street. An important role of Parcel 15
N.1 The prominence of Parcel 15 within the historic
is to face and support public space and public activity
on virtually all sides.

The sites large size and irregular shape offer numerous
This opportunity should be recognized and pursued.
opportunities, but will have to be deftly handled and

controlled during the design phase. Design should
N.2 Parcel 15 will form the southeastern visual edge
carefully consider and address the implications of this
of the CT Village, and should be designed accordingly.
situation.
Consideration should be given not only to the direct

relationships with the existing CT Village buildings, but
also to views along Oak and Dogwood streets, as well
as rooftop views across the entire CT Village.

on addition or modification.
New Architecture
The new architecture within Parcel 15 will play an
important role in the successful redevelopment of the
East Campus, linking together several fundamental
elements: the main southern entrance to campus
along Alabama Avenue, the Congress Heights Metrorail
station, the Dogwood/Sycamore corridor, the CT
Village, and the 13th Street Corridor. Together, these
elements comprise virtually the entire southern half
of the Saint Elizabeths East Campus, in both functional
and perceptual terms.
Several key considerations will apply: mediating
scale shifts between the CT Village and 13th Street,
creating safe connections between the Metrorail
184
N.3
New buildings should encourage continuous
pedestrian traffic and activity along Dogwood, Oak

and 13th streets. Maximal ground-floor activity and
transparency are encouraged.
N.4 In combination with Parcels 16 and 17, Parcel 15
will define the extended entrance to the East Campus
from the Congress Heights Metrorail station. Special
consideration should thus be given to inviting views
west along Dogwood Street from the Metro station.
N.5 Given its extent and the variety of its relationships
on all sides, Parcel 15 has the opportunity to contribute
a variety of urban spaces: on Dogwood Street, adjacent
to the Metrorail station; at the CT Village, southeast
of Building 107; along Oak Street, adjacent to the CT
Village; along 13th Street. Each opportunity should be
carefully considered and managed.
Figure 2.100: The Transit Plaza will accommodate outdoor

cafs and a wide variety of uses.
Figure 2.101: Dogwood Street is intended to by an important

retail street for the East Campus -- eventually connecting to
MLK Ave. in Congress Heights.
N.6 Building entrances should be visible from the
should not disrupt plaza circulation or Metrorail access.
Metrorail station.
L.3 Along Oak Street, the build-to line is set back
N.7 A tower element is appropriate at the southeast
from the right-of-way in order to provide generous
corner of Parcel 15. Design of this element should
foundation plantings between the back of the curb and
consider views from the east along Alabama Avenue,
the building face.
and from the south along 13th Street, among other

opportunities.
N.9 The use of photovoltaic systems or structures over
parking areas is encouraged
Landscape
L.1 As it extends along Dogwood to 13th Street, the
plaza should widen to create a significant public space
and a gateway to the East Campus.
L.2 Street trees should maintain continuity between
the plaza and both 13th and Dogwood streets. Plantings
Publically Accessible Open Space: Transit Square

Transit Square is located along Dogwood Street as it
intersects with 13th Street. This space will provide
for and celebrate a proposed entrance to the Metro
Station at the northwest side of the plaza on Parcel
15 and will be a primary center of retail activity. The
ground plane of Transit Square will be finished primarily
in hard surfaces which will allow for market uses,
temporary pushcart retail, public gatherings, outdoor
entertainment, and a variety of related uses.
Small water features oriented towards children,
benches, caf seating, larger interactive sculptures,
chess tables, bosques of trees, and similar features
should be incorporated into the overall design.
185
Pa r c e l 16
Parcel Area
1.2 Acres
New Development Pad
1.1 Acres
Area
8 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office, Hospitality
Recommended FAR
specific locations
4.0

Coordinate development
with WMATA
infrastructure.
186
40
108
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
9
R/ 0
10 W
60

Design Guidelines
7
R/ 5
W
G
13
th
St.
14
0.
40 5
75
R/
10
10
60

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
7
R/ 5
W
90 W
R/ 10
10
18*
Transit
Square
5
5
2.
t.
S
od
o
gw
o
D
40
75
R/W
75
R/ W
17*
A
10
10
2.
40

60
15
0 .5
108

across a street.
10
107
2. Access

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
16*
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
106

to items such as:
Existing Wetlands
10
5
40
0.
5
40
10
10
7
R/ 5
W
G
0.
90
R/ W
N OT E S
G
0.
12
75
R/W
40
Community
Park 2
18*
N OT E S
13th Street Section

removed
Number
Square
13
ine
17*

5
opmentpads with WMATA
g
Do

13th Street Section
to items such as:
5
5
2.
18*
40
0.
Ave or urban design

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
9
R/ 0
W
el line
Existing Wetlands. SE
Parcel number
14
75
R/ W
D
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Street centerline
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
10
bta.ma
NEW ST
10
AlaELIZABETHS
S
od
60
HOSPITAL
o
w
Transit
40
75
R/W
LEGEND
10
Community
Park 2
40
8th St. SE
107
Future Utility Pad
Transit
Square
14
2.
10
11
2.
Cypress
Commons
0.5
40
8th
C
5
10
15
2.
7
R/ 5
W
40
D Entrancce
106
75
R/W
Park 1
SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS OF

109
110
BUILDING
92 FROM THE
WEST.
Transit
Square
60
90
R/W
0.5
0.5
40
75
R/W
G
SE plan focusing on Parcel 16.

Figure 3.104:
ve. Regulating
A
a
m
Alaba
187
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
3. Ri
Luthe
not to
Parcel 16
Parcel 16 is situated directly north of the existing
Congress Heights Metrorail station. It is divided from
Parcel 13 in order to provide a right-of-way for the
hospital road, and should respect the path and the
New Architecture
nature of this road in development. Along with Parcel
The new architecture will represent the campus along
15, Parcel 16 will define the public and welcoming
Alabama Avenue and at the Congress Heights Metrorail
character of 13th Street for users moving north from
station, and frame views into the campus along 13th
the Metrorail station. New development within this
Street.
Sector will be directly accessible to the existing Congress

Heights Metrorail station. However, it will occur over
the long term, due to the need for coordination with
WMATA relative to access and other site constraints.
N.1 Along with Parcels 15 and 17, Parcel 16 will mark

the southern entrance to 13th Street. To the extent
possible, Parcel 15 should work in concert with Parcels
15 and 17 to frame a coherent urban space around the
Design of the buildings on Parcel 16 facing 13th Street
Congress Heights Metrorail station and a clear entrance
must accommodate the functional needs of the
to 13th Street.
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA)

and its operation of the traction power substation,
including unimpeded, 24-hour access to the roof and
main door of the facility. New construction adjacent to
WMATA facilities will be coordinated with its Office of
Joint Development and Adjacent Construction (JDAC).
188
N.2
New buildings should encourage continuous

encouraged.
height, and frontage parameters described in the
partial regulating plan in this section.
Figure 3.105: Perspective Illustration of Congress Heights Transit Plaza with a new entrance to
the Metro
189
Pa r c e l 17
Parcel Area
2.0 Acres
New Development Pad
1.8 Acres
Area
6 Stories
Heights
Allowable Land Uses
Ground Floor Retail
Office
Recommended FAR
specific locations
2.5
Programmed Open Space Transit Plaza

190
107
40
40

13

75
R/
40
10
60
9
R/ 0
W
10
10

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
16*
60
15
0 .5
5
5
2.
40
107
40
108
D
ve. SE
A
a
m
Alaba
75
R/W
75
R/ W
90
R/ W

to items such as:
2. Access

Precinct Areas
Open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage

across a street.
Existing Wetlands

90 W
R/ 10
10
t.
S
od
o
gw
o
D
17*
A
10
10
2.
60
18*
Transit
Square
10
75
R/W
106
40

removed
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
Community
Park 2
18*
10
10
N OT E S
7
R/ 5
W
40
0.
10
10
0
Creative Programming Priority Area . 5
40

75
Suggested Building Setback

R / Location
W
G
0.
5
0 .5
0 .5
40
75
R/W
A G
N OT E S
13th Street Section

12
17*

13th Street Section
to items such as:
14
5
5
2.

maarchitectural
General location
Alabafor
18*
75
R/W
D
0 .5
0 .5
40
W
R / be
G
removed
Parcel number
13
th
St.
a
AlabSta.m
d
oo
Transit
gw
Square
Do
75
R/ W
Existing
Wetlands
D
Street centerline
40
Community
Park 2

Design Guidelines
7
R/ 5
W
G
el line
.5
Number
108
0.
40 5
ine
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
9
R 0
10 /W
60
LEGEND
14
Square
2.
2.
2.
10
0.5
11
10
CFuture Utility Pad
10
NEW ST ELIZABETHS
Transit
14 HOSPITAL
15
40
40
7
R/ 5
W
Cypress
Commons
D Entrancce
106
109
75
R/W
110
8th
Park 1
Transit
Square
60
90
R/W
0.5
0.5
40
75
R/W
G
N OT E S
2. Access
191
2. Ac
E
a
S
b
in
t
L
n
b
3. Ri
Luthe
not to
Parcel 17
Parcel 17 occupies the southern edge of the Saint
Elizabeths East Campus and will provide its primary
face along Alabama Avenue. In addition, this parcel
will have a continuous frontal faade along Dogwood
Street. Finally, Parcel 17 will frame entrances to the
campus and public spaces along both 12th and 13th
streets. Each of these opportunities should be carefully
considered in design.

pedestrian activity along Alabama, Dogwood, 12th
and 13th streets. Maximal ground-floor activity and
transparency are encouraged.
N.2 In combination with Parcels 15 and 16, Parcel 17
will define the extended entrance to the East Campus
from the Congress Heights Metrorail station. Special
consideration should thus be given to inviting views
west along Dogwood Street from the Metrorail station.
N.3 In combination with Parcel 14, Parcel 17 will
New Architecture
define the campus entrance along 12th Street. Special
The new architecture within Parcel 17 will create
consideration should thus be given both to views north
the primary face of the East Campus along Alabama
along 12th Street (from outside the campus) and to
Avenue and define the path from the Metrorail station
views south along Oak Street (from inside the campus).
toward the CT Village and the historic campus core.

As such, it will need to have a dual orientation, south
toward Alabama Avenue and north toward Dogwood
Street, along its entire length. Its broad east end
should consider the visual impact on views west along
Alabama Avenue, while its narrower east end should
consider both the composition and scale of the historic
CT Complex.
The prominence of Parcel 17 within the historic
192
N.4 Given its extent and the variety of its relationships

on all sides, Parcel 17 has the opportunity to contribute
a variety of urban spaces: on Dogwood, near the
Metrorail station; at the CT Village, southeast of Building
107; and along Alabama Avenue. Each opportunity
should be carefully considered.
N.5 Buildings occupying the space between Alabama
Avenue and Dogwood Street should appear to face
both streets. Multiple points of access are encouraged.

N.6 Building entrances should be visible from the
Metrorail station.
N.8 The faade should be varied and segmented to
Landscape
Congress Heights Plaza, located at the southeastern
most portion, is intended to be a bustling transit hub.
Its buildings and landscaping should draw pedestrians
from the Congress Heights Metrorail station into the
heart of the campus.
The 11th Street Plaza will lie between Alabama Avenue
and Dogwood Street, and connects Congress Heights
with the CT Village. The small scale of this particular
plaza will make it unique.
L.1 As it extends along Dogwood to 13th Street, the

plaza should widen to create a significant public space
and a gateway to the East Campus.
L.2 Street trees should maintain continuity between
the plaza and both 13th and Dogwood streets. Plantings
should not disrupt plaza circulation or Metro access.
193
A d d i t i o n a l Pa r c e l s
Parcel 2
Situated to the north of Pecan Street, Parcel 2
comprises an L-shaped area wrapping two sides of the
Farm Complex. The property lies north of the main part
of the East Campus and extends along MLK Avenue at
the western edge of the site.
The use of Parcel 2 has already been determined
-- the site will be transformed into the future
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
headquarters. FEMA is part of the US Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the new building will
extend the presence of DHS from its main complex on
the West Campus to the East Campus in this location.
Development for the parcel is guided by the DHS Master
Plan Amendment East Campus, North Campus Parcel
and the North Parcel Environmental Assessment.
Continued coordination between the US General

Services Administration and DHS will be needed as the
FEMA building is planned and comes to fruition.
194
Parcel 18
Parcel 18 is located at the southeastern corner of the
East Campus. Its eastern side faces Alabama Avenue
and its western boundary is adjacent to the Washington
Hebrew Congregation Cemetery. The parcel currently
houses the entrance to the Congress Heights Metrorail
station as well as the Metro bus transfer facility, and
is part of the Congress Heights Transportation Sector.
While the East Campus Master Plan does not propose
a vision for Parcel 18, any future development will be
guided by the zoning for the site which will be based
on the recommendations of the Master Plan. Further,
development of the station area should reflect Master
Plans recommendations for a mix of uses, public realm
and placemaking recommendations found in Chapter
Two. Redevelopment of the station area will be lead
by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) in coordination with the District.
195
Figure 3.111: Perspective Illustration looking towards MLK from the Maple Quad
196
4: Implementation
Pine St.
Regulating Plan
82
1 in = 100 feet
1
83
44
Pecan St.
75
R/W
60
90
R/W
4A
90
2.5
10
CL
95
92
60
90
R/W
75
R/W
93
10
10
5
0.
40
111
0.
7
R/ 5
W
0.
10
75
R /W
40
5
5
2.
40
40
7
R/ 5
W
2.
5
2.
5
8th St. SE
Community
Park 2
SE
a Ave.
Alabam
LEgEND
90 W
R/ 10
10
St.
od
wo
g
Do
2.
40
75
R/W
108
18*
Transit
Square
2.
2.
11
75
R/W
40
7
R/ 5
W
15
0.5
10
14
17*
Transit
Square
A
10
10
60
90
R/ W
0 .5
0. 5
40
75
R /W
g
N oT E S
Street centerline
13th Street Section

Design Guidelines

removed

Parcel number

Figure 4.1: The Regulating Plan
198
60
106
109
110
107
Proposed
Metro
Entrancce
Existing Wetlands
16*
Community
Park 1
10
0.
5
40
7
R/ 5
W
g
12
g
2.5
2.5
44
75
R/W
76
R/W
2
44
13
10
10
75
R/W
40
0.
13
th
St.
0.
7
R/ 5
W
g
0.
40 5
40
75 W
R/
Lut
he
rK
ing
Jr.
Av
eS
E
5
0. 5
0.
112
Ma
rtin
102
100
75
R /W
1 7 .5
8
1 7 .5
Community
2 .5
Park 1
2 .5
40
9
R/ 0
W
40
75
R/W
Cypress St.
75
W
R/
10
2.
44
Existing Wetlands
10
2.
94
60
4B
E
NEW ST ELIZABETHS
HoSPITAL
Future Utility Pad
Cypress
Commons
40
New CoNstruCtioN oN ParCel 6

shall Not iNterfere with views of
buildiNg 92 from the west.
60
29
10
75
R/W
MLK
Forecourt
Maple
Quad
Sycamore St.
89
2.5
9
R 0
10 /W
44
75
R/W
88
14
300
District of Columbia Office of Planning

Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
District Department of Transportation
ST ELIZABETHS WEST
CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT oF
HoMELAND SECURITY
HEADQUARTERS (DHS)
18*
200
DRAFT April 17, 2012
79
14
100
Magnolia St.
86
MLK
Plaza
50
1. See the saint elizabeths east design guidelines

to items such as:
Precinct Areas
open Space
Landscape
Architecture
Building Frontage
2. Access
across a street.
I mplementation
Chapter 4: Implementation
The Saint Elizabeths East Campus Master Plan provides a foundation for preserving and enhancing the best of this
historic setting, while making the most of opportunities that come with new development. Implementation of the
Master Plan will require a planned and coordinated effort involving the community as whole, key stakeholders,
including the private sector, federal partners, and city officials and staff.
The steps toward implementation involve the four key areas:
Master Plan approval and completion of site entitlements;
Infrastructure and site systems design and construction;
Development solicitation; and
Development design and construction.
While there is a general understanding of the timing of these steps, the implementation of the Master Plan will
be phased to respond to market forces that will evolve over time as the market permits. It will also be influenced
by the availability of resources to invest in the transportation, utility infrastructure, and rehabilitation of historic
structures.
199
M a s t e r P l a n A p p r o va l
and Completion of Site
Entitlements
I n f r a s t r u ct u r e a n d
S i t e Sy s t e m s D e s i g n a n d
C o n s t r u ct i o n
Upon completion of the Master Plan, a 30-day review
As discussed in Chapter 1, the District is undertaking
period will commence that affords the public an
a series of efforts to thoughtfully plan for the site
opportunity to provide comments and feedback on the
systems and infrastructure needed to support the
Master Plan. All comments will be responded to, but
proposed development program. These efforts
final edits to the plan will only be made as appropriate.
include the Transportation Network Environmental
Additionally, the Master Plan will be submitted to DC
Assessment which will include the development of
SHPO and ACHP for a 30-day review process described
30% design drawings for the roads. In addition, the
in the Deed.
District is completing infrastructure planning, including
Prior to the redevelopment of the East Campus, the
a concept plan for infrastructure.
East Campus must be zoned. Applications to establish
The concept plan for infrastructure systems to serve
zoning will be filed by the Office of Planning and be
the redeveloped campus is to build all new publicly
heard and decided by the Zoning Commission as
maintained infrastructure systems and locate the
Zoning Map Amendments. In its review and decision
infrastructure within the proposed ROW. This
of appropriate zones, the Zoning Commission will be
infrastructure includes both wet (sewer and water) and
guided by the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future
dry utilities (electrical and communications).
Land Use Map, Generalized Policy Map, and Citywide

and Area Elements, as well as any Small Area Plan
which may be applicable. The process is considered a
rulemaking case, requiring a setdown, notification,
and a public hearing prior to the Zoning Commission
taking proposed and final action regarding a zoning
request.
Upgrades to the road system will not have any impact

on electricity, natural gas, water, or sanitary sewer
systems. However, improvements will result in an
enhanced curb-and-gutter system that will be more
effective in collecting runoff and conveying it to the
storm water system.
In order to meet the infrastructure and parking needs
of the community, a strategy will be developed to
integrate short- and longterm planning with the local
community. This strategy will effectively evaluate the
200
I mplementation
financial and infrastructure assets of the community.

This effort includes operating and maintaining existing
financial and infrastructure assets and planning for
future financial and infrastructure needs. Reducing
the burdens and complexity of maintenance can make
significant contributions to ensuring access to water,
heat, and other on-site utilities.
Shared parking opportunities will be considered
for the East Campus along with more conventional
strategies. Proper application of the shared parking
concept has the benefit of reducing the level of
investment needed to provide parking and the amount
of land that is dedicated to parking. Undoubtedly,
there are pros and cons associated with the shared
parking model; however, the recommendations
provided within the plan are consistent with the best
practices in the industry today in terms of arriving at
reasonable estimates of parking demand and capacity
requirements.
Additional coordination and planning is also needed
to address the two wetlands identified on the site
and further described in Chapter Two. Under the
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the city has
determines that one or both of these sites are wetlands

and meet the requirements of CWA as a wetland, then
these wetlands will be protected under the CWA.
If protected, then any changes to these wetlands
(including discharging anything to the wetlands, any
displacement of the wetlands, or constructing anything
within these wetlands) will have to be permitted/
approved by USACE under the section 404 of the
CWA. In such a case, the District will have to request
a permit from USACE. Areas to mitigate the effect of
future development on identified wetlands have been
identified as part of this process. The outcome of the
USACE process will not have a material effect on the
plan contained in this document.
Additionally, further analysis of hazardous materials
(that may include Phase I Assessment and testing) will
be needed for the sites within the East Campus that have
the potential of hazardous materials as shown in Figure
2.33. A remedial action plan should be developed prior
to construction/demolition that should include dustsuppression measures in the areas of potential fly ash
contamination, procedures for protecting personnel
exposed to potentially contaminated soils, and soil
disposal procedures.
submitted the wetlands report to the United States

Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and requested an
official determination of jurisdiction.
USACE may require additional documentation and/or
field surveys to confirm its determination. If USACE
201
Development
S o l i c i tat i o n
The Master Plan offers a long-term vision for the future
through a parallel effort, the Saint Elizabeths Innovation
of the East Campus. It contains policy recommendations
Strategy. Finally, parcels 10 and 14 will consist of low-
across a wide spectrum of topics, but with a particular
rise townhouse development. Following the Deputy
focus on redevelopment opportunities and economic
Mayor for Planning and Economic Developments
development. Upon plan completion, a development
(DMPED) selection of a proposal, the Council of the
solicitation will be issued to attract private partnerships
District of Columbia will have an opportunity to review
to implement phased planning priorities. The
and approve the selection.
solicitation will ensure that decisions for East Campus

development are guided by the overall Master Plan
vision and development priorities of the community.
One of the goals of the Master Plan is to identify the
Development Design and

C o n s t r u ct i o n
first phase of development, since the full build-out of
The Master Plan and design guidelines contained in
the campus could take up to 20 years to complete.

Figure 4.2 shows the site plan of Phase One. Preferred
land uses within Phase One include retail, residential,
educational, and civic uses. Phase One is envisioned
to be a vibrant retail center that connects to existing
Congress Heights Main Street services. With a presence
along Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Avenue, Phase One
will become a 24/7 activity hub that creates a local
sense of place for Congress Heights residents.
Proposed land uses are not intended to compete with
existing businesses, rather complement and enhance
what is currently there. Included within Phase One are
parcels 7,8, 10, and 14. New construction within parcel
7 should include ground-floor retail with a preference
for residential use on the upper levels. The vision for
Parcel 8 or Building 100 is to adaptively reuse this
building as a community center that will include a range
of services, amenities, and opportunities to educate
and train residents. The specific recommendations,
uses, and programs for this facility are being developed
202
this document are meant to be implemented in a

way that is financially and technically feasible, and
sustained over time. All new development projects will
be subject to the development standards and design
guidelines contained in Chapter Three of this Master
Plan and zoning as approved by the Zoning Commission.
Individual development projects that implement
this Master Plan will be subject to additional historic
preservation review under the historic covenants in
the Deed.
I mplementation
UCC
Suitl
and
Pkw
y.
Pine St., SE
Magnolia St., SE
Water Tower
Pecan St.
Sycamore St., SE
FEMA
New Saint Elizabeths

Hospital
Phase One
Cypress St.
Malcolm X Ave., SE
SE
t.,
dS
o
o
gw
Do
e., SE
ma Av
Alaba
Congress Heights
Metro
13th St., SE
Oa
kS
t.,
SE
13
th
St.
,S
E
Figure 4.2: East Campus Phase One

0 100 200
400
203
204
Acknowledgements and
Glossary
206
I mplementation
Acknowledgements and Glossary

Ac k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
Consultants
Community Action Team
Ayers Saint Gross, Master Planning and Urban Design
Marcus Sharpe
RCLCO (Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC) , Market
Tendani Mpulubusi El
Analysis
Dorenda Canty
Collaborative Strategies Group, LLC, Public

Engagement
ARUP, Sustainability Planning
EHT Traceries, Historic Preservation
CH2M Hill, Transportation
PRR, Public Engagement
Sagesse, Branding
ArchiBIM, Perspective Renderings
207
Agency Partners
Vincent C. Gray, Mayor
Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and
Harriet Tregoning, Director, Office of Planning
Economic Development
David Maloney, State Historic Preservation Office

Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director, Development
Review and Historic Preservation
Geraldine Gardner, Associate Director for
Neighborhood Planning
Joel Lawson, Associate Director for Development
Feras Qumseya, Director, Saint Elizabeths

Redevelopment Initiative
Ethan Warsh, Project Manager
District Department of Transportation
Terry Bellamy, Director
Review
Faisal Hameed, Manager
Evelyn Kasongo, Ward 8 Neighborhood Planning
Jamie Henson, Transportation Planner
Coordinator
Maxine-Brown Roberts, Development Review
Specialist
Sakina Khan, Senior Economic Planner
Tim Denee, Architectural Historian
Stephen Callcott, Preservation Planner
Laine Cidlowski, Urban Sustainability Planner
208
Victor Hoskins, Deputy Mayor
Lezlie Rupert, Major Projects & Environment Program

Lead
G lossary
G l o s s a ry
The definitions listed below are intended to serve as
supporting information for this planning document.
ACM:
Cogeneration (Combined Heat and Power):
Asbestos Containing Material
The use of a heat engine or a power station to
ACHP:
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
ADA:
Americans with Disabilities Act
ANC:
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
AST:
Above Ground Storage Tanks
Block:
The aggregate of private lots, passages, rear lanes and
alleys, circumscribed by thoroughfare rights-of-way.
simultaneously generate both electricity and useful

heat.
CWA:
Clean Water Act
CEQ:
Council of Environmental Quality
CMU:
Concrete Masonry Units
CPTED:
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design - a
multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal
behavior through environmental design. CPTED
Building Footprint:
strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender
The area of a two-dimensional plane circumscribing
decisions that precede criminal acts
the perimeter of a building as it engages the ground

plane or another designated plane.
CT:
Historically labeled as a Continued Treatment
Build-To Line:
village; the new Master Plan has redefined CT to
A line established along a street or open space
represent Community Technology village.
frontage extending the full width of the lot that

defines the block face and establishes building
placement. Lines established between public open
DC:
spaces and street rights-of-way represent the
DC SHPO:
approximate demarcation between the public open
DC State of Historic Preservation Office
space and sidewalk.
DDOT:
District of Columbia Department of Transportation
209
Deed:
EA:
The quitclaim deed dated September 30, 1987
Environmental Assessment
from the federal Department of Health and Human

Services conveying the Saint Elizabeths East Campus
to the District of Columbia and recorded among the
land records of the District of Columbia as instrument
number 8700056986.
Easement:
A right granted to one property owner (often a public
entity) to make use of the land of another property
owner for a limited purpose, such as a right-of-way or
public-use easement. Easements may be specified for
a fixed period of time, a fixed but renewable duration
Density:
A measure of the number of people occupying
a standard measure of land area. By assigning
increments of building area or dwelling units to each
EIFS:
Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems
person, density can be expressed either as the gross
Elevation:
floor area of all buildings on a lot (in square feet)
An exterior wall of a building not along a frontage line
occupying a lot; the gross floor area of all buildings
(see Faade).
on a lot divided by the lot area, usually expressed as

floor area ratio (FAR); or the number of dwelling units
within a standard measure of land area, usually given
as units per acre.
Design Guidelines:
Detailed recommendations for new development,
stipulating rules for streets, buildings and other
elements of a specific setting.
Development Pad:
EPA:
Environmental Protection Agency
Faade:
The exterior wall of a building that is set along a
frontage, typically a build-to line (see Elevation;
Frontage).
FHWA:
Federal Highway Administration
The area of a parcel within which a structure can
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
be placed after the minimum yard and open space
The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been
the lot area.
met, less any area needed to meet the minimum

requirements for streets, sidewalks or other similar
public improvements.
Framework Plan:
Recommended essential planning principles and core
values to create a diagrammatic framework of basic
DHS:
organizational elements, such as streets, open spaces
Department of Homeland Security
and building locations.
District Energy (DE):

See Cogeneration
210
or be set in perpetuity.
G lossary
Frontage:
LID:
All the property fronting on one side of a street
See Low Impact Development
between the two nearest intersecting streets or

other natural barriers. For the purposes of this Plan,
the frontage comprises the zone between the faade
of a building and the curb of the street onto which
DMPED:
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development
the building fronts. Frontage typically includes street
FEMA:
elements such as sidewalks, street trees, caf seating
Federal Emergency Management Agency
and similar components. Frontage also includes

elements of the building faade that directly impact
the pedestrian experience.
Frontage Line:
Those block or lot lines that coincide with a public
frontage, right-of-way and/or build-to Line.
Greywater:
Wastewater generated from domestic activities, such
as laundry, dish washing and bathing, that can be
recycled on-site for uses such as landscape irrigation.
GSA:
General Services Administration
LEED:
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Lot Line:
A line of record bounding a lot that divides one (1) lot
from another lot or forms a public or private street or
any other public or private space.
Low Impact Development (LID):
Planning and engineering design approach to
managing stormwater runoff. LID emphasizes
conservation and use of on-site natural features to
protect water quality.
Massing:
HHS:
A term used to describe the physical volume, shape or
Department of Health and Human Services
bulk of a building.
HPRB:
Master Plan:
Historic Preservation Review Board
A comprehensive planning instrument that describes
Illustrative Concept Plan:

A plan drawing illustrating the primary conceptual
ideas of a Framework Plan and Design Guidelines.
an overall development concept for a new or

revitalized neighborhood or city through narratives,
policies, illustrations and maps.
Such a plan only conveys a general intent and does not
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA):
specify precise design outcomes for individual building
The 1989 MOA requires the District of Columbia to
sites.
preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain the conveyed
LBP:
Lead-Based Paint
historic properties and all associated landscaping and

green spaces.
211
Mixed Use:
Public Realm:
Multiple functions within the same building through
That area of the built environment dedicated to
superimposition or adjacency, or in multiple buildings
public accessibility and use, commonly composed of
within the same area by adjacency. Mixed use is one
streets, sidewalks and public open spaces, such as
of the principles of transit-oriented neighborhood
parks, squares and plazas. The public realm is spatially
development from which many benefits are derived,
defined by the buildings, both public and private,
including compactness, pedestrian activity and
fronting its edges.
parking space reduction.

MLK:
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Regional Innovation Cluster (RICs):
Multi-modal Transportation:
A geographic concentration of interconnected firms
Transportation that includes more than one type of
and supporting stakeholders to align regional assets
travel method, such as walking and bicycling.
and strategy for a competitive advantage in a given
Multiuse Trail:
A separated path used for recreation or transportation
by pedestrians and, in some cases, bicyclists. Trails
often extend through natural areas.
NEPA:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NHL:
National Historic Landmark
industry. Usually comprised of academic institutions,

large companies, small entrepreneurial companies,
service providers, funders and investors, trade
organizations and government.
Retail Frontage:
Frontage that requires the provision of storefronts,
causing the ground level of buildings to be available
for retail use.
Right-of-Way (ROW):
NHPA:
A designation on the Build-to Lines Map, assigning
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
a dimension, measured from build-to line to build-
OP:
DC Office of Planning
to line, that delineates the course and width of a

street, inclusive of all travel lanes, parking lanes and
sidewalks; more generally, a public use easement,
PCB:
usually for a strip of land, that provides a path or route
Polychlorinated biphenyls
for public access or infrastructure.
Placemaking:
ROW:
Planning for a development which capitalizes on a
See Right-of-Way
local communitys assets (see Sense of Place).
212
RCRA:
G lossary
Sense of Place:
Streetscape:
The experiential quality of a setting that fosters a
The urban element that establishes the major part
sense of authentic human attachment and belonging,
of the public realm. The streetscape is composed of
making one feel that this place is special and unique.
thoroughfares (travel lanes for vehicles and bicycles,
Setback:
The distance which a building is required to be set
back from a lot line or from the nearest building or
structure.
Sidewalk Clear Zone:
The portion of the public sidewalk space provided
expressly for accessible pedestrian mobility. It is
usually located between the Landscape and Utility
Zone and the Building Shy or Caf Zone. This space
parking lanes for cars), public frontage (sidewalks, shy

zones) as well as the visible private frontages (building
faades and elevations, yards, fences, awnings, etc.),
and the amenities of the public frontages (street trees
and plantings, benches, streetlights, etc.).
Structured Parking:
A means of providing parking above grade in building
podiums containing two or more stories of parking.
Also call a parking structure or a garage.
is unobstructed and is constructed of materials and
TDM:
patterns that provide a relatively smooth surface
Travel Demand Management
complying with ADA accessibility standards.
Transit:
Sidewalk Shy Zone:
Any type of local public transportation (i.e., bus
A subzone of public and private frontage between
system, passenger rail, shuttle services, etc.).
the building faade and the sidewalk throughway.

For commercial frontages, it is usually paved and may
include elements such as caf seating or outdoor
retail displays. On residential frontages, it may include
Travel Demand Management (TDM) :

Strategies and policies to reduce travel demand
(specifically that of single-occupancy private vehicles).
landscaping elements such as a door yard, raised
Unified Communications Center (UCC) :
planters or seating areas.
To improve public safety and provide first-class
Sidewalk Street Tree Zone:

A subzone of the sidewalk between the street curb
and the sidewalk throughway, principally occupied by
tree pits and street trees.
Street:
For purposes of this Master Plan, a public
customer service, the District constructed a stateof-the-art Unified Communications Center. The UCC
opened on September 26, 2006, and is located on the
East Campus of the Saint Elizabeths Hospital site.
USACE:
United States Army Corp of Engineers
thoroughfare defined by a right-of-way as delineated
USGBC:
in the Build-To Lines Map.
U.S. Green Building Council

USGS:
U.S. Geological Survey
213
UST:
Underground Storage Tanks
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
Gases from certain solids or liquids that may include a
variety of chemicals, some of which may have shortand long-term adverse health effects.
214
asg-architects.com

ST Elizabeth's Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST Elizabeth's Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Plan and Design Guidelines

Government of the District of Columbia

This report was generated in collaboration with the following organizations:

Ayers Saint Gross Architects + Planners

Master Planning and Urban Design

Saint Elizabeths East Campus.................................. 3

Chapter 3: Architecture and Design

Sector Principles and Guidelines......................... 102

Parcel 1................................................................... 106

Sector: Maple Quadrangle................................... 110

For the City:...............................................................20

Sector: MLK Neighborhood Center .................... 130

Chapter 2: Master Plan.............................25

Master Plan Intent.................................................. 25

Places: Neighborhood Anchors..............................26

Public Realm ......................................................... 48

Parcel 7................................................................... 133

Sector: Campus Intersection .............................. 144

Sector: CT Village.................................................. 164

Sector: Congress Heights Transit Center ............180

Additional Parcels................................................. 194

Street Frontage ....................................................... 48

Sustainable Vision for the East Campus................. 64

Acknowledgements and Glossary...........207

The Environment and Sustainability .................... 64

Putting it Together ................................................ 76

Master Plan Approval and Completion of Site

Glossary ............................................................... 209

Saint Elizabeths East Campus

M aster P lan and D esign G uidelines

Figure 0.1: 1950s Photo of Maple Quad

Services Administration (GSA) assumed control of the

Therefore, this Master Plan is comprehensive in scope

West Campus for use as a future federal government

to provide standards for revitalization of historic

facility. In 2007, the US Department of Homeland

resources, land use and development, infrastructure,

Security (DHS) decided to consolidate its operations on

building height and density, public open space, and

the West Campus and redevelop that site.

sustainable measures in every sector of the site. Its

From the Districts perspective, the DHS consolidation

Plan of improvements to the East Campus that have

Moreover, proximity to DHS and the historic character

Chapter One of this document provides background

of the Saint Elizabeths campus provide a unique

on the Saint Elizabeths East Campus and the planning

advantage in attracting federal contractors and

process. It includes analyses of its position in the region,

security-related businesses to this area. Such economic

contextual conditions in and around the planning area,

activity, in turn, will help increase entrepreneurial

and a summary description of the community process

activity, venture capital investment, and workforce

to develop this plan.

development within the District.

recommendations are buttressed by a Transportation

A Master Plan for Saint

and/or redevelopment, and many other urban design

wide guidelines. Part of the plan sets forth a Vision

components. The Illustrative Concept Plan is not a

representing the future assets and characteristics of