Federal Urban Design Element Policies
Feedback Survey

"More prominent and attractive "welcome signs" and wayfinders with foot maps should be added."

"Existing regulations suffice."

"This should be a relatively low federal priority."

"Make the entry highways less chaotic and more inviting"

"Tasteful signage and restricting development. "

"Think "Beautiful Canopy, Beautiful DC", especially at gateways into our historic city. "

"When the "experience" is such that the vista or viewshed is "over" Federal property -- as would be the case coming north toward South Capitol Street and seeing DC "over" Boling Field, this could be justified. When the land that whose development would be restricted by whatever "reinforcement" is appropriate is under District jurisdiction, then any restrictions should be ones imposed, after public consideration, by the District."

"The only jurisdiction affected is the District of Columbia which governs land use."

"The plan could identify "gateway" routes of interest to DC, and for that matter, Virginia and Maryland and suggest, but not compel, measures that would promote this goal"

"This is conditional - it would depend on the space."

"Ditto A8."

"The federal government should not be restricting development outside of the federal core."

"Gateways can be preserved and enhanced without keeping scale down, just make the highways more pleasant to drive on...fix them!"

"DC and Virginia can work in concert (at Rosslyn for instance) but I doubt this is at all possible to put into policy AND regulate."

"There is more to a gateway than street trees and amenities."

"Who would pay for and maintain these improvements? NPS cannot even maintain the small downtown parks and plazas satisfactorily."

"With on-going maintenance commitments."

"Double the tree canopy in 5 years"

"And include well designed bicycle paths with informational signage at view points. "

"This is very basic- too basic. What exactly is meant by "amenities"?"