927-Unit Mixed-Use Project Planned For Union Market Area

• November 2, 2015
• 6 Comments

by UrbanTurf Staff

Rendering of Market Terminal. Click to enlarge.

The new residential projects just keep coming to Union Market.

Kettler filed plans Monday morning for a six-building, mixed-use development that will include residential, retail, and office uses. The project, which will be constructed in two phases, could bring a total of 927 residential units to the area just west of Union Market.

The development is proposed for 300, 325 and 350 Morse Street NE (map), and is designed by R2:L Architects. The proposal would raze the existing buildings at the site, including those occupied by the markets Sam Wang’s and Kang’s Farm.

Another look at Union Market. Click to enlarge.

Here is a breakdown of the buildings at the new project:

• Building A1 — An 11-story building with 450 residential units, ground floor retail, and three-levels of parking.
• Building A2 — As proposed, a six-story building with approximately 150 residential units.
• Building B — A six-story building with 125 units and ground-floor retail.
• Building C1 — A high-rise office building with retail.
• Building C2 — A residential tower with around 250 units and ground-floor retail.
• Building D — A 130-foot office building with retail.

The first phase of the project would consist of the construction of buildings A1, B and C1. The second phase would include buildings A2, C2 and D.

Aerial view of planned project. Click to enlarge.

By our count, this brings the total number of residential units on the boards for the Union Market area to over 2,000; if you include the residences that will be part of the Gallaudet redevelopment, that number jumps over 3,000. It is probably time to update this article.

More renderings of the proposed development:

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

This article originally published at https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/927-unit_mixed-use_project_planned_for_union_market_area/10535

6 Comments

1. Eponymous said at 6:35 pm on Monday November 2, 2015:
   I am very excited about the development around the NoMA Metro, but this design is terrible. The least they could have done is borrow from the more industrial/warehouse-type designs that other developers have been using around the Market. This just looks like Ballston.

1. Bill Panici said at 8:27 pm on Monday November 2, 2015:
   My feelings exactly. Seems like a megalith and directly over multiple train tracks. Feels totally depersonalized. Not for me.

1. skidrowedc@gmail.com said at 9:31 pm on Monday November 2, 2015:
   It does feel as if the curvilinear tower is sucking all the budget and design energy from the rest of the complex. Thus, I suppose, the Ballston comparison, although I don't think it's THAT dull, what with the train tracks and grade changes. But the basics of the master plan are extremely promising. Buildings/wings of different heights! Some curves! Potential for a great mostly-pedestrian enclave! Terrific connection to Florida Avenue! These are all highly commendable, and appear well-considered and integrated. I don't know that the façade design needs to be more "industrial" (whatever that means, when applied to overtly non-industrial buildings). But it does need to be more interesting, especially the lower buildings. The curvilinear tower's interest can come from purely architectural forms, but perhaps the lower buildings could develop interest via architectural ornamentation. R2L architects came from Esocoff, who did many modern-ornamentation experiments. Maybe this is the time to revive that direction.

1. ErickS said at 9:50 pm on Monday November 2, 2015:
   The red curvy building is terrible and so cheap looknig! And who even knew you could make a red curvy building look boring!

1. Nathaniel Martin said at 4:55 pm on Tuesday November 3, 2015:
   As usual, I agree almost entirely with skidrowedc, though I would underscore the fact that there REALLY needs to be more thought given to the design of the boxy buildings. You can't just rely on the curvy building to carry all the aesthetic weight. To me, it is not the curvy red building but the surrounding dumb boxes that look cheap. The whole project needs more integration, more nuance, more finesse. Details can make or break any building, but especially here. I am not sure that adding ornamentation is the answer--I'd rather see more skillful composition, more depth in the facades of the boxy buildings, more attention to creating a holistic group of buildings.

1. Eponymous said at 5:33 pm on Thursday November 5, 2015:
   Yeah - love the idea of a curvy building. Would love to see some innovative post-modern buildings in D.C., though something tells me people would lose their minds if a developer tried that. Hate the execution here. The long, rectangular building is even worse. Possibly the most boring proposed building I've seen --and that's saying a lot in D.C.