6th Street Corridor Request for Qualifications
6th Street NE Corridor Request for Qualifications (RFQ)—Download PDF
View the Gallaudet 2022 Campus Plan
View D.C.'s Florida Avenue Market Small Area Plan
More information on Deaf Space Design
Questions or comments, please email email@example.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Where are the boundaries of the Campus Plan, and are there any overlaps with the 6th Street parcels?
- Maps and boundaries can be found in the university's Campus Plan. The Appleby Building and the 6th Street parking structure are not officially in the campus plan but the plan supports activation of 6th Street by orienting activities in a way that would frame a new pedestrian entrance at the corner of 6th Street and Florida Avenue.
- Will the campus become more accessible, especially after work hours?
- The University’s long-term goal is to enable the campus to be significantly more open to the public, which may be accelerated through redevelopment of the 6th Street parcels, including the planned Olmsted Gateway. Decisions on providing additional access to the campus will be made based on a number of factors but must always prioritize the need to maintain a safe environment for its students and faculty.
- Are there 6th Street traffic calming or infrastructure plans?
Is there any financial support from the District for these plans?
- Several near-term and long-term strategies to calm traffic and improve the streetscape on 6th Street could be considered, depending on the broader development vision. The University is interested in the respondents’ potential approaches to financing and implementing relevant infrastructure that may be necessary to realize their development vision, including whether the University and/or the District or other public sector entities would be expected to contribute financially.
- How much parking is available on the campus and, specifically, the 6th Street Garage?
- There are 1,381 parking spaces on campus, including 271 spaces in the 6th Street Garage. During daytime hours on an average business day, approximately 75% of these spaces are fully utilized and the first priority for on-campus parking spaces will be to accommodate parking needs of students, faculty, staff, and visitors with valid parking permits. However, the University is continuously evaluating its parking needs and would be interested in ideas that may better utilize its parking assets in the long-term and even in the near-term during off-peak hours.
- Will any of the parcels have student housing? Are there any student housing requirements in place on campus?
- The Campus Plan suggests that apartment style student housing could be developed on the Appleby site. Nevertheless, the University is interested in learning what alternative product types the development partner may consider locating on each parcel based on the development partner’s sense of market demand, institutional synergy, placemaking, or other factors that may benefit the overall development vision.
- Beginning in the 2014-2015 school year, all freshman and sophomore students will be required to live on campus. On-campus housing needs are anticipated to be met through existing campus housing and/or planned renovations of existing residential units. Juniors and seniors will continue to have the option to live either on-campus or off-campus. In 2012-2013, Gallaudet’s housing stock was 1,280 beds, potentially providing for approximately 79% of the total student enrollment. Historically, approximately 30% of the student population lived off campus and tend to choose housing options within 1.0 mile of campus. Upon completion of the proposed residence hall renovations and new construction detailed in the 2022 Campus Plan, the university will be able to house 1,550 students, or approximately 70% of the total projected student enrollment of 2,238 students in the year 2022. Should the development partner propose residential development on some or all of the parcels, students permitted to live off-campus, alumni, and faculty are an additional potential source of market demand beyond the development partner’s sense of residential market demand for individuals not affiliated with the University.
- How will the University’s visioning and master planning process continue? How will the RFP winner integrate the vision?
- The University intends to work with the selected development partner to mutually refine the initial urban design vision articulated in the RFQ. The University is interested in the respondents’ opinions about the vision and particularly any considerations that may need to be incorporated for successful development of product types or design features that the respondent would propose for the parcels.
- What kind of feedback do you desire from students, alums and staff?
- The University will continue to seek feedback from students, faculty, staff, alumni and other stakeholders throughout the developer solicitation process as well as during the design and programming of the parcels. At this stage in the RFQ/RFP process, the University does not wish for respondents to seek feedback from students, alumni, or staff. For firms that are short-listed to receive the RFP, the University will arrange opportunities for the selected firms to engage directly with students, alumni, and staff.
- How will DeafSpace design be incorporated into 6th Street?
Would you prefer that we name our DeafSpace architects/consultants or is this a selection that the university would prefer to make in partnership with the developer once selected (and so we should not name them)?
- The University does not expect respondents to explicitly seek any architects or consultants that have utilized DeafSpace principles for the purposes of this RFQ. Rather, the University is interested in the respondents’ opinions on how DeafSpace principles may be incorporated into their overall design process, including how the respondent would like to incorporate findings from the University’s ongoing research on DeafSpace.
- Will the Appleby use relocation affect the process?
- The University is currently evaluating multiple locations for the functions currently housed at the Appleby building. We do not anticipate relocation needs for these functions to be a barrier to redevelopment of the parcel or to delay potential redevelopment timelines that may be proposed by respondents.