Thanks for your continued reporting on McMillan, Aaron!
Changes to McMillan Design Fail to Win Over Loudest Skeptics
Earlier this week, UrbanTurf published a couple of renderings of the new design for a big park at the McMillan sand filtration site along North Capitol Street. The latest scheme from Vision McMillan Partners address some neighborhood concerns, replaces a 3.4-acre park at the center of the site with a 6.2-acre park at the southern edge, and looks, well, rather gorgeous:
The Historic Preservation Office likes the changes, calling them "a substantial improvement" and praising the new park for its "far superior location and concept." But the neighbors who objected to the earlier designs? Not so much.
"We’re still not in favor of the plan, because basically, I mean, the park they’ve done some things with, but they made it more dense by pushing things up," says local Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Tony Norman.
"The basic objections still stand," says John Salatti of the Bloomingdale Civic Association. "Yes, there have been a lot of changes, and the pictures are prettier, but the changes don’t actually address any of the concerns we discussed last year."
Norman objects principally to the taller buildings in the new design and the fact that not all the park space will be usable by the public. (He prefers this lower-density proposal, which the developers can't be wild about, given the diminished revenue potential.) Salatti protests the loss of sight lines from the Stronghold neighborhood to Howard University and the National Cathedral and the lack of creativity in the design. "The idea that McMillan could be Washington’s Millennium Park or High Line, that kind of creativity has never come to the project," Salatti says.
Norman objects principally to the taller buildings in the new design and the fact that not all the park space will be usable by the public. (He prefers this lower-density proposal, which the developers can't be wild about, given the diminished revenue potential.) Salatti protests the loss of sight lines from the Stronghold neighborhood to Howard University and the National Cathedral and the lack of creativity in the design. "The idea that McMillan could be Washington’s Millennium Park or High Line, that kind of creativity has never come to the project," Salatti says.
And so the seven-year battle is likely to drag on longer. "Every improvement they’ve made has been done because the community has forced them to do it," Salatti says. If that's the case, don't expect McMillan's dissatisfied neighbors to give up the fight.
6 comments:
The problem is that we are beholden to the pre-selected Bethesda-based development team. You can't blame them for seeking to maximize their square footage at every iteration of their 'design'.
Had this amount of public space become available in some less corrupt city, there would have been a competition of ideas and a public process would have resulted in an opportunity to select the best possible use of this unique, taxpayer-owned space.
EYA, the gymnast and other inside-baseball conspirators have been shoving one unimaginative design after another down our throats from day one. Somehow, I always felt that it would not be possible for such a corrupt process to transform this unique site into another Shirlington. They say god works in mysterious ways. In this case, he went with an old favorite--flooding!
Had it not been for the flooding, there was nothing stopping this development team from their plan of postage-stamp-sized parks amongst mostly paved and over-developed concrete buildings.
While the park that was never part of this development team's plan looks nice in the renderings, I regret that the larger buildings will block the sunsets for folks in Stronghold, that we are rewarding the very people whose payments sent Harry Thomas Jr to jail, that no effort was made to incorporate the reservoir into the project, that Olmstead Walk has been made less majestic, and that public property is being handed over for profit-taking without proper competition (which may still trigger a lawsuit).
Best case scenario is that the HPRB will do its job, reject the EYA proposal, but allow the park to be constructed as a way to alleviate flooding and open this public space for public use.
Well, I was against the first few iterations...
However, i see some potential here in that the park is a great size. It is much larger. Now, yes, it's TOTALLY uncreative. I'm surprised the the landscape artists have come up with this soulless design. It isn't for a lack of talent in that firm because we KNOW that they are capable of more...it's just a low budget operation. But it also isn't worthy of that site.
I really like the design for the community center put forward by Maria and her team. Esp, the creative use of the plinth and the cells. It points the way forward. Not all of it granted...i really didn't like their larger design for McMillan...again, everybody wants to reference that old 70/80 European brutalism meets Neo-modernism.... C'mon people...let's use what we've got...take some inspiration for the great Victorian and Craftsman architecture of the neighborhood and run off those themes. This is too structured...still too much concrete. Look at the Falls Park in Greenville SC...it integrates old cotton mills with a great landscape. It is masterful in it's balance of structure and nature.
In short, I think we can all agree that the northern 1/4 of the site is just a loss..directly across from Washington Hospital Center and a visual abortion. I don't care a whit about what they use that section for. Hospital offices? Fine. All the better if it's taller and i don't have to look at WHC anymore.
The second 1/4...we all want a grocery store. And if they need to put apts on it to make it all work then Fine. it's a compromise.
The third 1/4 ...row houses. Well the reality is that DC needs some tax base and this and the apts and the offices is what gives them that. It's unfortunate, but I think that it's a comprehensible quandary.
The park is now where we need to focus our efforts. It is of sufficient size to make a spectacular place of it. We need some foundation money to do it. To think that the VMG folks are going to make it that way is probably only a wish. They are taking a profit approach (normal for a business). Millenium park was foundation funded (pritzker). That is the inescapable truth.
What we need now is to engage the landscape architects and put them together with Maria's team to come up with something truly unbelievable and visionary. Then we as a neighborhood need to engage and to work with the VMG team, the city and Marias team to get it funded. I suggest that it be conceived of in discrete pieces to permit foundations to fund separate parts. But let's let the architects run wild. Give them long reign and let's just see what is possible. Then we can worry about the funding. VMG should engage with the community to determine the themes and architectural style.
This is the way forward. If we want "world class" this is the only way to get it. Let's now take a "appreciative inquiry" approach...we are much further than we have ever been before. Let's now change the tone from a battle (which was necessary for all the earlier versions) to a cooperation. I'm ready to help whereever i can.
Also, can we use some brick here rather than concrete? That's perhaps my biggest objection. McMillan's structures are brick. so is our neighborhood. The renderings are all poured concrete. Especially around the sand towers...that's massive amount of concrete. All the charm of a parking lot. Let's have brick walls with pebble walkways (like on the mall). Also the space around the sand towers can be much better used...outdoor cafes, stands for farmers markets, biergartens, benches for sitting and people watching, outside art installations. Let's have some creativity here people. Not just an elevated concrete runway!
oh, and let's loose the road on the south service court...totally unnecessary...i've been saying that since 3 iterations ago. It's sole use is to service the community center and there are other ways of achieving that, it doesn't create permeability, it isn't necessary for the rowhouses. Finally, Matt conceded it in the last HRPB session. I have NO idea why anybody wants to keep a road there where it can be a part of a park and the public space.
So how long are we going to do this? Wait till every single peroson has a warm fuzzy about the project? Well then just leave the fence up and and expect nothing to get done. Everyone isn't going to be happy with this project no matter what, and if we wait around for everyone to put in their 2 cents we will be waiting another 30yrs. I suspect that a lot of the very vocal people want nothing to get done in the first place and if they can delay and delay and delay they will piss off the developers and they will just give up and forever label the site unusable due to hostile neighborhood. Can we just get this done and move on. If you don't like how it turns out then don't go up there.
I live across the street from this project and have to look at it every day. Where do you live, Mona? Do you think this corrupt developer should be awarded this project? This is a special place that deserves special treatment. There is no reason a one-year competition couldn't be undertaken. There could be an international competition and architectural schools could be invited to submit proposals. You can remain seated while this corrupt city spoonfeeds you your medicine, but I will continue to push for a more fair process to ensure that this public space serves a public purpose
I take great exception to your characterization that opponents of this unimaginative plan secretly want the fence to stay up. Personally, I share the views of the McMillan Park folks, who would also like to see the fence taken down. I'd even support a memorial to Barack Obama. Somehow, the Olmstead Walk reminds me of Obama's stature and grace.
As someone who is unable to see into the minds of others and guess their motives, I do not know yours. But, let me suggest that folks contribute to the debate by stating their own opinions, not questioning the motives of people they don't know.
Post a Comment