Log in
Dupont Circle. Georgetown. Capitol Hill. Mount Pleasant. Historic Anacostia. These historic neighborhoods — dense, walkable, and layered with small businesses and street life — are held as proof that DC works. They anchor the local economy and define the city’s image.
And yet, if DC tried to build a modern version of these neighborhoods today, its permitting system would likely prevent it, or stretch the process across multiple generations. One need only look at the history of Dupont Circle to see how painfully difficult it would be to repeat its success under today’s rules. Those rules don’t protect neighborhoods. Instead, they protect incumbents by turning delay into a filter only the well-resourced can survive.
Dupont Circle evolved — it wasn’t permitted into existence
Dupont Circle did not arrive fully formed in its current state. Its character emerged over decades because of small, continual changes. In fact, most of modern day Dupont Circle came from it’s gradual initial growth.
According to the DC Office of Planning, a majority of Dupont’s still-existing buildings were built between 1875 and 1931. This leaves a glaring question: How is it that buildings constructed in the nearly 100 years since 1931 are in the minority?
Much of the growth in those 56 years between 1875 and 1931 predated the systems that now regulate incremental change. DC’s comprehensive zoning regulations took effect in 1958. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions were created in the 1970s, with their “great weight” authority later codified in DC Code § 1–309.10. The Dupont Circle Historic District was designated in the mid-1970s, and the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act followed in 1978, adding another layer of discretionary review for developing many of the city’s most desirable neighborhoods.
Each reform was reasonable on its own. But together, they fundamentally changed how, and how quickly, neighborhoods can evolve.
What Dupont would face today
Imagine trying to create a modern Dupont Circle now, not through one megaproject, but the way it actually formed: through hundreds of ordinary, low-impact changes implemented over time. A mixed-use building opens with ground-floor retail. That retail space later becomes a café. A bookstore adds wine service. A restaurant expands its seating to the sidewalk. A bar replaces a shop as demand shifts. None of these changes are dramatic on their own, but as a whole, they made Dupont Circle what it is today.
Under today’s rules, however, each of those steps would trigger a new permitting sequence across multiple agencies.
Changes of use or occupancy may require zoning interpretation or relief through the Office of Zoning or the Board of Zoning Adjustment under Title 6 of the D.C. Code.
Interior work requires plan review and permits through the Department of Buildings under D.C. Code § 6-1451.01.
Alcohol service requires a license from the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration pursuant to D.C. Code § 25-104, with protest and hearing procedures governed by Title 25, Chapter 6, including the standard 45-day “protest period” during which objections can be filed.
Outdoor seating or sidewalk activation requires a public space permit administered by the District Department of Transportation under public space occupancy authority in D.C. Code § 10-1141.03.
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions weigh in at multiple points with “great weight,” but without any statutory deadline to act. Approvals move in sequence, not in parallel. A pause at any stage halts everything that follows.
H Street NE knows these dynamics well
Just look at H Street NE, where everyday business changes, like adding alcohol service to a restaurant or expanding seating, have been subject to repeated ANC protests and multi-stage approval processes that can last months. These processes have stopped the kinds of incremental evolution that once happened more organically. For instance, KitchenCray, a locally-owned restaurant, faced so much scrutiny and investigation over a proposed “substantial change” — turning its empty basement into a lounge — that its owners said they were forced to close.
For established corporate operators, delay is merely an inconvenience. For even established local DC business owners like those of KitchenCray, to say nothing of someone trying to open their first business, the delay can be the end of the line. This is how time and politics become a gatekeeper.
Outdoor dining and the cost of gatekeeping
When it comes to permits for outdoor dining, the tradeoffs make the problem easy to see.
A single curbside parking space, roughly 20 feet long, can support two dining tables seating about eight people total. If each diner spends a modest $30 and tables turn twice per evening, that space generates roughly $480 per night, or about $144,000 per year in gross restaurant revenue. That activity is taxable. At DC’s 10% meals tax rate, one outdoor dining space supports roughly $14,400 per year in meals tax revenue alone, before counting alcohol taxes, income taxes paid by workers, or business taxes paid by the restaurant.
A parking meter on the same curb typically charges about $2.30 per hour. Even assuming 10 paid hours per day, that space would generate roughly $8,400 per year, much of which is offset by enforcement and administrative costs.
When DC removes outdoor dining to restore a single parking space, the tradeoff is not neutral. The city is choosing to give up tens of thousands of dollars in economic activity and at least $14,000 in annual tax revenue in exchange for just half that amount, while also eliminating jobs, wages, and street life.
The same logic applies indoors, where delayed openings, abandoned leases, and frozen ground-floor spaces quietly shrink the tax base one permit at a time.
A failure of governance — not demand
The cost of today’s rules aren’t just to DC, which trades jobs, tax revenue, and vitality for a tighter budget. Everyone else also pays the price. The go-getter who never gets to open their shop. The worker who never gets hired. The resident who gets an isolated, emptier street instead of a place to gather.
This is not inevitable. It is a policy choice. Dupont Circle remains popular because it was allowed to evolve, and because people were trusted to adapt buildings and streets to how life actually worked.
What makes it so frustrating is how simple the fix actually is. Nothing radical is required. Ordinary, low-impact changes in mixed-use neighborhoods could just be allowed by default. Agencies could be required to act within real timelines before a permit is automatically granted so that delay can’t quietly kill good ideas. Community input could be taken into serious consideration without every small change leading to a drawn-out standoff. Sequential permitting could be removed in favor of a simultaneous, or cross-department, centralized permitting process.
Instead, DC asks people to celebrate neighborhoods it would no longer allow to become what they are.
The next Dupont Circle isn’t failing to appear because the demand isn’t there. It’s because the rules won’t let it. And until those rules change, DC will keep congratulating itself on its past, while quietly foreclosing its future another quarter century.
Top image: A sidewalk market in Dupont Circle. Image by BeyondDC licensed under Creative Commons.
