Submitted by jurgenius87 t3_zv89kj in washingtondc

I’m a little partial to my own area, but the 3ish mile stretch of 2000-5000 block of Connecticut Ave NW is a visual delight to me. Urbanized, dense but stately at the same time. Also partial to Independence Ave in SE where it crosses the lower numbered streets like 7th/8th/9th.

What places do all of you find yourself slowing down a little more and taking in the sights? Merry Xmas to all!!!



You must log in or register to comment.

solidrecommendations t1_j1noeff wrote

Capitol Hill between the avenues, west of Lincoln Park


boogabooga08 t1_j1vubko wrote

East of Lincoln park both north and south are extremely aesthetic too!


hemlockone t1_j1olf69 wrote

Not quite a neighborhood, but my favorite residential street to walk is Q St NW. From Georgetown University, to Georgetown to Dumbarton Bridge, to Dupont, to Logan Circle is a straight shot with interesting 1800's architecture the whole way. With a little jog you can continue to Truxton Circle and NE (but I rarely go that far).


dozyhorse t1_j1quqsc wrote

I agree with this; I love Q. All of it you’ve described, but from about 18th to 14th especially.


lmboyer04 t1_j1ntp0b wrote

Capitol Hill or Georgetown are traditionally very pretty. I do have a soft spot for some of the mid century stuff in SW though.

By contrast, I find all of the homogenous development in Navy Yard hideous. Sorry


DCGinkgo t1_j1ot5bi wrote

Agree. Navy Yard is a concrete wasteland.


self-extinction t1_j1qeq7m wrote

Navy Yard would be very nice in most other cities, but DC has such a strong aesthetic of its own that Navy Yard's sleek, post-industrial upscale vibe just doesn't mesh well with.


rainbowliteshow t1_j1oaug2 wrote

All the neighborhoods/parks around the cathedral


jurgenius87 OP t1_j1obktw wrote

I looked at some condos on cathedral ave, beautiful but it seemed so remote


9throwawayDERP t1_j1r370o wrote

live nearby, it isn't too bad if you are closer to wisconsin, but once you get away it kinda is a sleep suburb.


Drire t1_j1p06zo wrote

Only disagreeing because Glover Park is/was hilly as all hell (but I miss all my hiking trails that all the normies never set foot on)


rainbowliteshow t1_j1q5cb2 wrote

Ah see I mean more like cathedral heights/woodley park! Not Glover


eventhestarsburn t1_j1oct2u wrote

It’s so basic I know but there is nothing like georgetown in the fall (or spring for that matter). I could walk those streets a thousand times and never tire of how beautiful it is.


9throwawayDERP t1_j1r2kew wrote

i have a walking commute partially through georgetown. it is always pretty. even in the dog days of summer, since it has so much tree cover too.


Drire t1_j1oju0z wrote

I loved just walking around Mount Pleasant 6 or 7 years ago


Drire t1_j1p01ee wrote

To be clear, not that anything happened that I know of, I just moved to Georgetown after MP lol


overnighttoast t1_j1nseon wrote

I really like colonial village, all the houses tucked away vaguely into rock creek Park with lots of little hills and whatnot.

But im a city girl who loves cottage core so.


jurgenius87 OP t1_j1ntjq9 wrote

I’ve always found the houses in the middle of rock creek park intriguing, some definitely have a more futuristic style.


Gumburcules t1_j1olnuk wrote

The old mansions on the east side of Rock Creek.

Also the mid century modern homes on the east side of Rock Creek.

Maybe I just really like the east side of Rock Creek?


dumpholder t1_j1oa1va wrote

Just west of rock creek and just north of military.


Ok_Following_9336 t1_j1nxx29 wrote

I mean Capitol Hill area ofc with all the beautiful historical buildings. But for residential purposes I really love Navy Yard and The Wharf…especially in the summer when the Nats are playing.


FxTree-CR2 t1_j1orui2 wrote

Two very different styles but both are beautiful: Eckington and Brookland. Also Hillcrest, but don’t tell anyone for another year or so please.


theedgeofoblivious t1_j1nofr7 wrote

I'm not sure there actually is such a thing. The whole metro area has tons of absolutely beautiful areas. Politics are really messed up, but there are lots and lots of incredibly pretty and aesthetically pleasing areas within the city, the metro area, and the region as a whole.


SuperBethesda t1_j1p0h1j wrote

So many choices: Georgetown, DuPont Circle, Logan Circle, Kalorama, Capitol Hill, etc. Anywhere there is Federal style architecture, which there is an abundance of. DC is just a beautiful city.


waconaty4eva t1_j1oh0it wrote

mansionsof southeast going out towards branch ave


FxTree-CR2 t1_j1orxje wrote

You talking Hillcrest/Fairfax area? Also beautiful!


NPRjunkieDC t1_j1ozxtq wrote

New Hampshire from U St to Dupont is one of my favorite walks . But also parts of Q St NW east of 16th St NW Some blocks on 19th St NW.

DC has preserved its old buildings and townhouses built mostly between 1880-1920.


Ok-Sector6996 t1_j1oo5ri wrote

I like Crestwood a lot. It always surprises me that it's not a long walk from where I live in Park View. The variety and juxtaposition of different neighborhoods in DC is one of my favorite things about living here.


hotsauce96 t1_j1ovvx4 wrote

Give me endless rows of freestanding NE red brick bungalows


BIGLIAMD t1_j1qc2qn wrote

I used to deliver for the rounds and the nicest neighborhood I ever delivered to was mt pleasant


doticatto t1_j1qcm6a wrote

Kalorama rd west of Connecticut


self-extinction t1_j1qezz1 wrote

I'll second that stretch of Connecticut. The first time I saw it, I knew immediately it was my aesthetically favorite part of the city.


jurgenius87 OP t1_j1qgidg wrote

Yeah, the ponce de Leon, the Frontenac, and 3930 are all beautiful


doctorcharming1 t1_j1oyv57 wrote

The triangle of buildings between a Connecticut Abe and Columbia RD NW, from the Hinckley Hilton on the south end north to say Calvert St always enthralled me.


NPRjunkieDC t1_j1oznp7 wrote

Several of the buildings north of the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Ave are featured in the book Best Addresses of Washington DC . Also the Wyoming, around the corner on Columbia .


doctorcharming1 t1_j1p7vyc wrote

Still mad to this day that my offer on a unit in the Wyoming was passed over. That was 99.


NPRjunkieDC t1_j1prsp0 wrote

23 years ago, you mean?

One bedroom units in 20009 haven't gone up in price for the last 10 years


DCJoe1970 t1_j1qgqyz wrote

14th Street in Logan Circle and Connecticut Avenue in Dupont Circle.


Lebuhdez t1_j1rtyyr wrote

I really like the are NE of the Petworth metro. There are lots of trees and interesting single family homes with small yards so it’s very green


leafonawall t1_j1umrlj wrote

NW areas (Columbia Heights/Petworth side streets with trees and porches on both sides


rafdaman15 t1_j1pbhl0 wrote

Take a stroll down 1600 block of Benning road NE


jurgenius87 OP t1_j1q8t36 wrote

Yup, I’m a big fan of Minnesota ave, Kenilworth, and good hope as well.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1oidrv wrote

Everyone in this thread: describing areas with large uninterrupted stretches of pre-WWII built “traditional” architecture

Everyone in other threads: traditional architecture is pastiche and wanting more of it is probably fascism, also if you don’t like the wharf/navy yard’s modern architecture you’re an unrefined rube


Gumburcules t1_j1ol6kr wrote

  1. The people on this thread are not necessarily the same people as the other threads.

  2. Enjoying a particular style of architecture does not mean you think it is the only style of architecture that should be allowed anytime, anywhere.

  3. It's OK to like the aesthetics of inefficient architecture and also like the efficiency of unaesthetic architecture.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1p3vju wrote

  1. Yes they are.
  2. Why wouldn’t you prefer to have what you view to be the most beautiful architecture in as many places as possible.
  3. Why not efficient aesthetic architecture?

lmboyer04 t1_j1ov0dd wrote

Honestly I think trees and scale are the things that do it me more than the style of buildings. I want something that’s livable


VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1p0w3l wrote

I think the point is that architecture really isn’t like, the reason why changes to a neighborhood should be opposed. Like, who cares if Navy Yard doesn’t look like Paris? There are places for people to live there, unlike the $4 million homes in Georgetown.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1p3iq2 wrote

Why not beautiful high density homes like in Paris? I like (or at least don’t mind) change when it’s improving the beauty of an area.


VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1q40pw wrote

I don’t think beauty is a valid criterion for opposing new housing. It’s just used as a crutch for people who don’t like seeing their neighborhoods change.

I strongly doubt Parisian apartments would comply with current building standards. For one, they don’t have elevators generally.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1qcf2f wrote

I support new housing that is beautiful. Our lived environment has a direct affect on our mental well-being. It’s no different than saying “I support new housing that adheres to building/safety codes” — would you support new housing that didn’t have a fire escape or emergency sprinklers?

Parisian housing with elevators would work for me.


VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1qipoq wrote

"I support new housing [as long as it meets my arbitrary aesthetic standards]" is garden-variety NIMBYism. Do you think the citizens of Tokyo, a city that doesn't have any aesthetic standards, have poor mental health because the buildings don't all look the same? Our lived environment would be a lot better if housing prices were lower and there was less traffic.

Safety codes are to save people's lives, not to meet the aesthetic preferences of some people.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1qjkl7 wrote

Does mental health not count as a valid field of health? It is not “some people,” there actually is an overwhelming consensus on what the average person finds to be beautiful. And similarly, it’s well documented that the aesthetic appearance and layout of ones lived environment has a meaningful impact on individual well being (and even things like civic engagement and crime). Also Japanese people are among the most depressed in the world, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?

Why are you against just building things more beautifully? Why is that the hill you want to die on? Shouldn’t everyone live in beautiful walkable medium/high density neighborhoods like those in Cathedral Heights / Kalorama / DuPont Circle? Should only rich people be able to enjoy beauty?

See Chevy Chase Lake for what I’m talking about.


VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1qs8u0 wrote

Do you think famously existentialist Parisians have great mental health because their city was has consistent architecture? I think that extremely high housing costs driven by NIMBY opposition to new development affects peoples’ mental health far more than like, building aesthetics. Lots of things go into crime and satisfaction, etc. and there’s zero evidence that building aesthetics have a big impact when all factors are taken together. Seems weird to design a city at great expense for small mental health benefits.

I’m all for building things more beautifully, but in the end it’s totally subjective. I think Tokyo and Hong Kong and Seoul are beautiful. Does that mean we should design DC to look like that?


BrightThru2014 t1_j1rdhvo wrote

It’s not at great expense!!! You really have no idea what you’re talking about — after taking into account the cost of the land itself plus the foundation, all of the interior of the building, etc embellishments on the exterior are a marginal cost. Nobody is supporting NIMBYism, but why should we accept new housing that looks like the same cookie cutter blocky condos that are going up in every new development from Boise to Raleigh to Phoenix, when we could build buildings that look like DC and are almost universally preferred by anyone that’s not a developer.

Do you agree that all else held equal architecture for new buildings should reflect the democratic aesthetic preferences of the vast majority of the populace? Because that’s the reason why the Seoul and Tokyo example doesn’t make sense — people want traditional middle-density architecture like they see in upper NW and Capital Hill. Either you respect what people want or you tyrannically impose your own aesthetic tastes on others.


VulcanVulcanVulcan t1_j1rqx6f wrote

I generally don’t think “people” should determine what a person decides to build on private property, no. The “traditional middle-density” architecture in those neighborhoods you like is insufficient to accommodate a growing and prosperous DC. If you want to bulldoze McLean to build rowhouses, that is great, but those same rowhouses are standing in the way of reduced housing costs in DC. Single-family rowhouses are less dense than a five-story building.

The democratic aesthetic preferences of a lot of people would be simply “whatever prevents new development in my neighborhood” and that is insufficient in my view.


9throwawayDERP t1_j1r2wng wrote

well the affordable homes in the paris suburbs look more like navy yard than kalorama. the ones that look nice are priced like kalorama...


BrightThru2014 t1_j1ref13 wrote

Why not build more housing that looks like Kalorama elsewhere?


9throwawayDERP t1_j1rezcr wrote

they do. look at the 'new construction' in georgetown. keep in mind the price is 3x what navy yard construction costs.

labor intensive intricate masonry? oh man, try to find good workers and then price it out.


BrightThru2014 t1_j1rgdk2 wrote

This is 100% false. The cost of having a nice facade is marginal compared to the cost of the land, the foundation, interior of the building, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.

For example:

Or this:

Why not more of that?


9throwawayDERP t1_j1rgtxr wrote

Oh I'm wasn't talking about just the facade. I'm taking about the full inside and outside. I agree if you just want the facade it is cheap. I mean mcmansions are also cheap.


Appropriate-Ad-4148 t1_j1reir1 wrote

The price premium for traditional architecture in cities like D.C. is not realistic for the average person.

If people are going to pay 2k a month for an apartment, can you blame them for wanting an in-unit washer dryer and central A/C even though the exterior facade is cheap looking?


BrightThru2014 t1_j1rfesu wrote

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again — exterior facade costs are absolutely marginal compared to the cost of the land, the foundation, internal construction, electrical wiring, plumbing etc. It’s a rounding error. You do not dissuade construction by having standards for these things, any more than having other mundane building code requirements like sidewalk encroachments.

In fact such constructions DO happen and are priced comparably to the luxury apartment developments you find in Navy Yard or boutique developments in places like H Street.

For example: