THE FIREHOUSE MEETING

The latest Northwest Current gives a detailed account of Tuesday night's
meeting. I don't have anything to add except that I am dismayed that the
Tenleytown Historical Society president says that she intends to try to have
it declared a historical structure. If that happens, that will kill any
chance of having a new firehouse on that spot. I fear it will kill a new
firehouse for our area, period. As you see in the article, we don't even have
a heavy duty rescue squad at that station.

If you are going to have your voice heard, the time is now. I would urge
anyone interested in this to make your feelings known to Erik Christian,
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety & Justice,  727-6053 or
Echristian-EOM@dcgov.org.  It also wouldn't hurt to send a copy to
Councilmembers Kathy Patterson, Harold Brazil, and the ANC Commissioners.

Also, Acting Chief Ellerbe has invited the community to form a committee to
weigh in on what we'd like to see in the way of design.
 
 

COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS ON THE PROPOSED NEW FIREHOUSE

Since the first item was published about this station, several  residents
sent in comments. The following are most of those comments:

---- Date: 5/4/00 (Copy of letter to city officials)
From:   Hahagerty ( Herb Hagerty)
Please act now to provide the money to replace the falling down Tenley
firehouse -- an important part of the lifeline all of us depend on in this
part of town. What's the sense of upgrading the Department and its equipment
while ignoring the comfort and safety of the people who make it all work?
---------------------

----- Date: 5/5/00
From:   jciw-centernet@erols.com (jciw-centernet) (JCWaldmann)
I don't know whether the firehouse message is your personal view, or that of
the author of the book on Tenleytown who, I understand, though she no longer
lives in the area is therefore unlikely to have up-to-date information on
what is currently needed and what is in existence, has circulated a letter
in favor of destroying the Tenley Firehouse.

Whichever the case may be, I would like to suggest that one-sided, and
undocumented letters such as this do nothing to increase one's understanding
of different points of view, but instead create unnecessary anxieties and
anger.

It is clear that all want to be assured that the fire and rescue protection
available to our area is capable of meeting the needs, both in terms of
personnel and equipment.  That said, one needs to learn how that
determination is made.

I have recently learned that the equipment currently at the Tenley Firehouse
does in fact provide the protection needed.  To destroy a historic
firehouse, whose personnel and equipment are doing their job successfully,
without a thorough discussion and understanding, is irresponsible, both
fiscally and historically.  The meeting can accomplish something only if
people come without having been scared into thinking that the service
currently provided is inadequate, thus potentially placing them in danger.
-----------------

--- Date: 5/5/00
From:   eyoffe@worldnet.att.net (Emily Yoffe)
Great points here [ to Communit-E article]-- I've sent email.  We don't live
in colonial
Williamsburg, we live in a city!!
-----------------

--  Date: 5/8/00 (Copy of letter to city officials)
From:   Joe Pinder
I am writing about the proposal to demolish and rebuild the firehouse at
Wisconsin and Warren Streets.

As I understand the situation, the Council has budgeted funds to demo and
rebuild the firehouse, but some neighborhood residents believe the old
firehouse ought be preserved.

Frankly, I am concerned if the old station presents a difficulty or a safety
hazard to firefighters, but I don't see a new firehouse in this city, or a
new city-built structure for that matter, that isn't an architectural
blight, and I am concerned as I go by that area every single day. If a new
firehouse is to be built, I feel it must conform architecturally to the
style that station has. By this I do not mean "architecturally resonates"
that style, but conforms. Reproduction buildings are commissioned every day
in this country and if we can't have one, I don't want a change. Part of the
problem with all of this was the stupid (though not long-ago) decision to
allow the convenience store to be built next to the station. Were that not
there, the station could be expanded, or the building could be resold to a
restaurant and the station moved a few blocks away, not far enough to damage
response time but onto a larger lot with equal access and egress that would
not use high-tax-revenue property for a purpose that could be fulfilled
equally well off a main drag. One spot could have been the old police
station on Albemarle, now given to Iona House, which has done a very nice
job. However, if the station is a problem now, it was a problem five or six
years ago when that property was sold to Iona; that was city property and it
never ought to have been deeded away. If the city doesn't start thinking
about the long-term ramifications of its property-disposal process, we'll
have more and more problems like this.

Right now, the best way to handle this, I guess, is to rebuild a new station
as a reproduction. But I'd really  like to see that station preserved, used
as a restaurant generating both another place to eat in the neighborhood and
some real tax revenues for the city, and then the station put nearby. How
about on Idaho Ave, where the police station parking lot is rarely used to
capacity? It isn't like that police station is any architectural marvel that
needs to be viewed by anyone, and the sits is only about five blocks down
the street, with plenty of access and egress for the book hook/n/ladder
trucks. Might take a little longer to park but a good architect could handle
all of those problems easily.

Could I have a reply on this, especially the points on reproducing a new
station, putting taxable land to its highest and best use, and on using the
land in front of the police station? After all, that's already a
public-safety facility.
------------------

---- Date: 5/11/00
From:   p-johnson@starpower.net (Philip Johnson)
As an architect, I can assure you it is perfectly possible to widen the doors
(with appropriate structural modifications), with minor aesthetic impact. I
can't
speak to the flooring system, but I know from experience that all sorts of
historic buildings have been brought back to life around this country. What
are
the qualifications of the Fire Department's "planning officer"? I suggest
that we
fight hard not to get some ugly stripped down brick or concrete box, when
there
are many precedents and possibilities that have yet to be explored.

(Question from KS : since size is also an issue, can the building be enlarged
as well as the doors? Is this cheaper than just pulling it down and
rebuilding it larger on the same design?  Is it cheaper to rebuild or to
modify?)

 Answer: Of course the building can be enlarged, depending on the site. On a
per square foot basis, however, new construction is cheaper generally than
renovation and restoration. There are some sacrifices in restoring an old
building in terms of space use efficiency, but/and that is what makes a big
concrete box so attractive to modern budget executives. It takes imagination
and work on both sides (efficiency vs aesthetics) to make these projects
work, but they can work...
---------------

My thanks to those  who took the time to weigh in and/or to write letters
regarding this important neighborhood issue -- KS