Our neighborhood has a lot going on! Decisions that will impact the future of what our community looks like, who will live here, and the daily experience will be made in the near term. Many of these issues are central to the mission of Cleveland Park Smart Growth: to advocate for policies that:
- advance greater, more sustainable density
- prioritize pedestrians, biking, and transit
- promote equitable housing
- champion urban vitality, and
- strike a balance between preserving our past and growing our future
These decisions include commercial area rezoning and its intersection with historic preservation; the redesign of Connecticut Avenue to incorporate protected bike lanes; use of the service lane; a redesigned bus network; and the future of single-family-only zoning.
As an advocacy organization, we want to be sure we are capturing positions that reflect the views of the people who have joined our group. To that end, we conducted a survey of our members. While there is no unanimity on any of these issues within the CPSG community, there are clear policy preferences, and some where the majority choice approaches unanimity. The survey was distributed to 502 CPSG members and was completed by 168 between June 6-13, 2023.
After conducting the survey, we thought it would be useful to see what our broader community thought on these same issues. We shared our survey broadly, primarily through the Cleveland Park Listserv. Do CPSG members view issues similarly or differently than the community at large? And what are the demographic differences or similarities? Over the past few days (June 14-18, 2023), the same survey was distributed over the CP Listserv and 377 people responded.
What follows is a review of the results among both survey samples: CPSG members, and the broader CP community. Neither of these surveys can claim to be representative of either the CPSG membership or the broader CP community. They only reflect the opinions of those taking the poll.
Here’s a broad observation across the several issues tested: while the CPSG sample is more unified on where they stand on these issues, they do not differ much from the outcomes expressed by the majority view in the broader CP sample. The prevailing opinion of both agree:
- 75 foot or taller buildings are appropriate for the commercial areas
- Historic preservation should not limit the allowed zoning
- The restaurant caps in CP and WP should be lifted or removed
- Bike lanes belong on Connecticut Avenue
- The service lane should be always open to people and permanently closed to cars
- Four- and Six-plexes should be legalized within a ½ mile of the Red Line
If the results of the CPSG survey feel inline with your own opinions, consider signing up! There’s no membership fee and you will join a community of forward thinking urbanists that are looking for ways to make the area a better urban place.
Development
The first question is about height preferences of future development in our commercial areas and is a good example of the differences and similarities between the two survey groups – they are different, but not that different. A plurality of CPSG members (42%) believe heights should be taller than what is proposed, whereas a plurality of the broader community believe they should be lower than proposed (39%). Yet a clear majority of those comfortable with a significant change from the status quo, those who said either the proposed heights are about right or heights should be taller, are found in both the CPSG sample (77%) and the broader community sample (55%).
“The recent draft of Development Guidelines for the Cleveland Park & Woodley Park Commercial areas call for rezoning the Cleveland Park strip to allow seven story buildings (75’) and the Woodley Park strip to allow seven story building on the east side and nine story buildings on the west side, all with appropriate setbacks, rear height transitions, and keeping with the architectural design of the area using sympathetic materials.Which of the following best represents your opinion of these recommendations?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Heights should be significantly lower | 5% | 21% |
| Heights could be a little lower | 14% | 20% |
| Heights are set about right | 35% | 28% |
| Heights could be a little taller | 27% | 13% |
| Heights could be significantly taller | 15% | 14% |
| No opinion | 5% | 4% |
| NET: About Right Or Taller | 77% | 55% |
Historic Preservation
One of the issues facing future production of multi-family housing at the commercial centers of Cleveland Park and Woodley Park is if they will be approved by the Historic Preservation Review Board at the full zoning height and density allowed. The proposed development guidelines and any future zoning are not binding on HPRB. They can, and likely will, decide appropriate heights and densities on a case by case basis.
The prevailing view of both the CPSG sample and the broader community sample believe that if HPRB downsizes a project that would otherwise be taller and/or more dense, that the DC Council should reform the Preservation law to limit HPRB’s purview to design and materials, but to allow the permitted zoning. The CPSG sample (78%) was significantly higher on this opinion than the broader community sample (46%).
“Assuming the CP & WP commercial areas get rezoned, if the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) prevents a building from achieving the new zoning height and density, which of the following comes closest to your point of view?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Accept the HPRB’s ruling since they are the historic subject matter experts, regardless what the zoning is | 15% | 45% |
| Ask the Council to reform the Historic Preservation Law to prevent HPRB from reducing the height and density of projects that are consistent with zoning, and focus their review on architectural elements, design and materials. | 78% | 46% |
| No Opinion | 7% | 9% |
Similarly, in both samples majorities believe that at minimum HPRB is vulnerable to abuse as a tool to inhibit development. This view is held by 85% of the CPSG sample and 53% of the broader community sample. Yet here too, differences between the two samples are clear: a plurality of the CPSG sample say HPRB often exceeds its mandate (48%), while a plurality of the broader community sample says HPRB generally does a good job (41%).
“In your view, which of these opinions about historic preservation in DC is closest to yours?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Generally does a good job protecting historic neighborhoods and landmarks | 12% | 41% |
| Mostly does an adequate job but is vulnerable to abuse and sometimes is used as a tool to stop worthwhile projects | 37% | 31% |
| Often exceeds its mandate and gets used as a tool to stop worthwhile change | 48% | 22% |
| No Opinion | 3% | 7% |
| NET: Vulnerable to Abuse Or Often Exceeds | 85% | 53% |
Restaurant Caps
Substantial majorities of both samples would at least want the 25% street frontage cap on eating and drinking establishments raised. Among the CPSG sample, majorities would see the cap removed entirely in both Cleveland Park (65%) and Woodley Park (61%). In the broader community sample, the plurality response was to remove the caps entirely in Cleveland Park (39%) and Woodley Park (37%).
“Eating and drinking establishments are limited to 25% of the street frontage in the CP and WP commercial areas. Which do you support for Woodley Park/Cleveland Park?”
| Woodley Park | CPSG | Broader CP |
| Remove the cap entirely | 61% | 37% |
| Raise the cap above 25% | 26% | 33% |
| Keep the cap at 25% | 3% | 17% |
| Not Sure | 9% | 12% |
| NET Raise Cap+ | 87% | 70% |
| Cleveland Park | CPSG | Broader CP |
| Remove the cap entirely | 65% | 39% |
| Raise the cap above 25% | 29% | 36% |
| Keep the cap at 25% | 2% | 18% |
| Not Sure | 4% | 7% |
| NET Raise Cap+ | 94% | 75% |
Single-Family-Only Zoning
While the examination of single-family-only zoning has been a hot topic in metropolitan areas and states around the country and region – Arlington recently passed a plan to allow four-plexes county-wide – it has not reached the planning stages for DC yet, with the exception of a study prepared by the Office of Planning in 2020. Cleveland Park Smart Growth will be discussing the issue of relegalizing apartments, especially in areas in proximity of transit. This is the background behind the survey question that demonstrated a high level of similarity between the two samples. Large majorities of both the CPSG sample (86%) and the broader community sample (64%) say that areas within a half mile of the Red Line should at least allow four- and six-plexes.
“Many areas close to the Red Line metro are zoned for single-family only housing. Which is closer to your opinion?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Areas within a half mile of the Metro should allow at least low-density multifamily housing such as four- or six-plexes | 86% | 64% |
| Areas zoned as single family only should remain that way, regardless of where they are. | 10% | 30% |
| No Opinion | 4% | 7% |
Bike Lanes
Support is strong for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave across both samples. In the CPSG sample, support for the announced DDOT plan is 70%. In the broader community sample, support for the announced plan was the plurality at 44%. Just 12% of the CPSG sample and 24% of the broader community sample think bike lanes do not belong on Connecticut Ave.
“As you may know, DC has proposed protected bike lanes for Connecticut Ave from Chevy Chase to Woodley Park, along with other safety improvements and a redesign of parking management along the corridor, and includes one-side-of-the-street parking in the commercial areas. Which of the following come closest to your view on how the redesign of Connecticut Ave should proceed?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| The plan recommended by DDOT and the Mayor last year should be designed and implemented as quickly as possible | 70% | 44% |
| The plan should be rethought to better accommodate more parking along the entire length of Connecticut Ave | 13% | 26% |
| Bike lanes do not belong on Connecticut Ave | 12% | 24% |
| No Opinion | 5% | 7% |
| NET Support for Bike Lanes | 83% | 70% |
Service Lane
There is also strong support for keeping the service lane in Cleveland Park for pedestrian activity, permanently closing it to cars. Among the CPSG sample, support for an all-pedestrian area all the time was 83%. Among the broader community sample support was 59%.
“Which of the following is closest to your opinion when it comes to how the service lane area in front of the stores on the east side of Connecticut Ave in Cleveland Park will be used after construction?”
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Keep it open to people, pop-ups, outdoor dining, and place making and closed permanently to cars | 83% | 59% |
| Reopen it to cars and parking, but close it periodically for event and pedestrian use | 13% | 30% |
| Re-open it to cars and parking 24/7 | 2% | 9% |
| No Opinion | 1% | 2% |
| NET Allow Cars | 15% | 39% |
Neighborhood Issue Concerns
A question was posed on the CPSG listserv a few weeks ago asking if people were concerned about crime. With little chatter on the listserv, we knew a survey would be a better way of answering that question as well as putting views on crime in context of other concerns. In both samples, crime related issues are clearly somewhat of a concern, but not a top priority.
Topping the list on both samples with the highest percentage of “very concerned” was pedestrian and bike safety followed by store vacancies. While not crime-related, people experiencing mental-health issues was rated higher than crime issues. Among the crime-related issues, panhandling was the lowest concern among both samples, while property theft was rated highest.
Among both sample groups availability of parking was the issue with the least registered concern.
Biggest differences between the two samples:
CPSG > Broader CP: Better dining and drinking options; Availability of affordable housing; Cost of housing
Broader CP > CPSG: Availability of parking
| CPSG Sample | Very Concerned | Somewhat Concerned | TOTAL (ranked) |
| Pedestrian and bike safety | 65% | 27% | 92% |
| Store vacancies | 56% | 36% | 92% |
| Cost of housing | 55% | 35% | 90% |
| Availability of affordable housing | 50% | 38% | 88% |
| People experiencing mental health crises | 36% | 51% | 87% |
| Better dining and drinking options | 33% | 47% | 80% |
| Climate change impacts (heat, flooding) | 43% | 37% | 80% |
| Traffic violence | 44% | 33% | 77% |
| Better bus service | 25% | 46% | 71% |
| Property theft | 27% | 29% | 56% |
| Violent crime | 28% | 27% | 55% |
| Neighborhood cleanliness | 13% | 42% | 55% |
| Public school system | 21% | 33% | 54% |
| Panhandling | 18% | 28% | 46% |
| Availability of parking | 6% | 19% | 25% |
| Broader CP Sample | Very Concerned | Somewhat Concerned | TOTAL (ranked) |
| Store vacancies | 45% | 42% | 87% |
| People experiencing mental health crises | 44% | 42% | 86% |
| Pedestrian and bike safety | 58% | 27% | 85% |
| Climate change impacts (heat, flooding) | 45% | 35% | 80% |
| Cost of housing | 39% | 38% | 77% |
| Availability of affordable housing | 37% | 37% | 74% |
| Traffic violence | 40% | 33% | 73% |
| Property theft | 37% | 31% | 68% |
| Violent crime | 41% | 25% | 66% |
| Better bus service | 24% | 37% | 60% |
| Public school system | 29% | 30% | 59% |
| Better dining and drinking options | 19% | 39% | 58% |
| Neighborhood cleanliness | 24% | 33% | 57% |
| Panhandling | 21% | 29% | 50% |
| Availability of parking | 17% | 29% | 46% |
Demographics
Gender
The CPSG sample is closer to the expected gender distribution, while the broader CP sample has fewer than expected men.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Female | 48% | 57% |
| Male | 47% | 32% |
| Intersex | 1% | 0% |
| Something else | 1% | 1% |
| Prefer not to answer | 3% | 10% |
Age
The CPSG sample is generally younger than the broader CP sample, eight points more 35-54 year olds and four points fewer aged 55+.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| 18-34 | 10% | 12% |
| 35-54 | 49% | 37% |
| 55+ | 35% | 39% |
| Prefer not to answer | 6% | 12% |
Home Ownership
Renters are only slighted more represented in the CPSG sample than the broader CP sample.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Own | 74% | 73% |
| Rent | 25% | 21% |
| Prefer not to answer | 1% | 7% |
Housing type
The CPSG sample is six points higher on residentes living in a multi-family building.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| a detached single family house | 24% | 30% |
| a duplex or semi-detached house | 13% | 10% |
| a row house | 7% | 8% |
| a multifamily building | 52% | 44% |
| Prefer not to answer | 3% | 7% |
| NET Single-Family Home | 44% | 48% |
Transport ownership
Those in the CPSG sample are just as likely as those in the broader CP sample to have a SmartTrip car, a car, and a rideshare account. The CPSG sample is more likely to have a bike/scooter share account and an e-bike.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| A SmartTrip card | 97% | 93% |
| A car | 79% | 80% |
| A rideshare account (Lyft, Uber, etc) | 78% | 70% |
| A conventional bike | 55% | 54% |
| A bike and/or scooter share account (Capital Bikeshare, Lime, Uber, Spin, etc) | 39% | 25% |
| An e-bike | 14% | 9% |
| A scooter or motorcycle | 3% | 2% |
| None of the above | 0% | 0% |
Transport frequency
There are few differences between the mode of daily transportation between those in the CPSG sample and those in the broader CP sample. On a weekly basis, CPSG sample respondents are slightly more likely to cycle, take the Metro, and ride the bus.
| CPSG | Daily | Weekly |
| Walk | 88% | 12% |
| Drive your own car | 18% | 48% |
| Take Metro rail | 17% | 41% |
| Cycle (any kind) | 11% | 21% |
| Take the bus | 5% | 29% |
| Scooter | 1% | 2% |
| Rideshare | 1% | 16% |
| Taxi | 1% | 5% |
| Drive a rental car | 0% | 0% |
| Broader CP | Daily | Weekly |
| Walk | 88% | 11% |
| Drive your own car | 21% | 52% |
| Take Metro rail | 15% | 37% |
| Cycle (any kind) | 10% | 17% |
| Take the bus | 6% | 18% |
| Scooter | 1% | 2% |
| Rideshare | 1% | 11% |
| Drive a rental car | 0% | 0% |
| Taxi | 0% | 3% |
Neighborhood
Respondents in the CPSG sample are more likely to live in Cleveland Park.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Cleveland Park | 69% | 53% |
| Woodley Park | 13% | 15% |
| Van Ness / Forest Hills | 7% | 9% |
| Chevy Chase | 3% | 6% |
| Cathedral Heights | 2% | 3% |
| Other (please specify) | 2% | 3% |
| AU Park | 1% | 1% |
| Friendship Heights | 1% | 2% |
| Lanier Heights | 1% | 0% |
| McLean Gardens | 1% | 1% |
| Mount Pleasant | 1% | 0% |
| Tenleytown | 1% | 4% |
| Adams Morgan | 0% | 1% |
| Dupont Circle | 0% | 1% |
| Glover Park | 0% | 2% |
| Mass Ave Heights | 0% | 1% |
| Palisades | 0% | 0% |
| Wesley Heights | 0% | 0% |
Local Organizations
CPSG sample respondents are more likely to affiliate with GGW, Coalition for Smarter Growth, and Ward 3 Vision. The broader CP sample respondents are more likely to affiliate with CPCA, CPHS, and WPCA.
| CPSG | Broader CP | |
| Cleveland Park Community Association | 28% | 37% |
| Cleveland Park Historical Society | 12% | 27% |
| Coalition for Smarter Growth | 29% | 7% |
| DC YIMBYs | 4% | 3% |
| Greater Greater Washington | 45% | 16% |
| Other (please specify) | 23% | 24% |
| Rock Creek Conservancy | 28% | 28% |
| Ward 3 Housing Justice Committee | 6% | 5% |
| Ward 3 Vision | 21% | 11% |
| Washington Interfaith Network | 10% | 11% |
| Woodley Park Community Association | 8% | 13% |
Cleveland Park Smart Growth 