I see VMG has recruited a whole load of shills to fill the blogosphere with crap. This development leaves alot to be desired and the people supporting it just have no real vision for what the site could be. Vision-less people have turned our entire country into a nation of strip malls and big box stores....a Non-place. It makes me sick. Let them go live in the suburbs if that's what they want.
Todd,
You seem like a lovely fellow, but this is exactly what I was talking about in my open letter, posted a few days ago. There are a number of good reasons to be for the proposed development and a number of good reasons to be against it.
This will (one hopes) ultimately come down to the best attempts by reasonable people to balance our grander visions against our assessment of what is possible. Inevitably, different people are going to come to different conclusions about that, because there just isn't a hard-and-fast equation for it.
To summarily write off everyone who comes out on one side of that divide versus the other as a corporate shill who makes you sick is probably unhelpful.
Yeah, sorry about that Jeff...guess it got away from me after seeing so many comments about folks just ready to sell out our last great opportunity for something awesome on this side of town. But as you might have seen from my postings elsewhere, I live overseas...i live in Africa now, and have lived in Europe quite a bit too. I am originally from South Carolina. I see what developers have done to the Appalachian mtns where i grew up...all cheap condos littering the mountainsides... the ugly strip malls that now make my home state no different than any other community in Texas, or California or any other state....and I buy a home in a place with a strong sense of community and "place" and now they want to build a big office park in my backyard. Something that has no bearing and relation to the site's history or its sense of place and it just makes me sick. Seems like the noone values a distinct sense of "place" anymore.... just as long as we can pick up our groceries within a block without walking too far. So in the end, every place looks exactly like every other place. And it makes me just want to live the rest of my life somewhere else. I guess i just care too much. Read Howard Kunstler's Geography of Nowhere....better yet see the Ted Talk.... here you go:
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html
Also, i have to ask...how many of the VMG designers and architects actually live in our neighborhoods? How many live even in the district? So why are they getting to develop our "place?" Why are they bringing their suburban sensibilities into our neighborhood?
Does it matter, relative to the merits of the proposal? People often approvingly cite Olmstead Jr. as the designer of the original park, and I don't think anyone claims he's of the neighborhood.
I think what you're really saying is that you don't like the proposal. Which I get, and I'm sympathetic to. If someone put forth a proposal you liked, I doubt you'd care where they came from.
But let's have a discussion about the actual merits, drawbacks, and possibilities instead of trying to impugn people's motives. Let's talk about what's good, what's bad, what's possible, what's cost-prohibitive, what there is and isn't the political will to accomplish. But what neighborhood the architects are from and whether commenters are corporate shills? That's all a sideshow.
Also, true story: I bought my house in Bloomingdale off a higher-up at one of the city's major commercial developers. He'd lived there for 10 years with his family. So I wouldn't assume that developers aren't also neighborhood residents, because it's not like we really have any idea.
Jeff, i agree with your overall points. Point taken about developers, but what I mean is ....that business sensibilities and power relations are driving this whole thing...not only the technical merits of the design. There isn't even a real forum for the community to approve the technical merits here. And their "outreach" has really been more of a show than anything real" I know because i was involved at the beginning. If we were only discussing the "merits" of the design it would be much easier. But in fact, this plan isn't being carried along by its merits. Consider how this "deal" was put together. Just do a bit of research into the history of how VMG got this project (prior to the Deputy Mayor's office taking this over). At the very best we'll call it a case of complete non-transparency. At the worst, it could very well be full on corruption. We don't know all the details, because in fact, the DC gov't has not clarified it by releasing the details of the agreement or the bids or the RFP. We DO KNOW for CERTAIN that it was not a public tender process (it was a shortlist of businesses selected by NCRC) and we also KNOW for SURE, that EYA and other groups have contributed heavily to certain council members campaigns. We are KNOW for SURE that several of said members are now in jail for corruption and others are on their way. So, combine this with the way VMG has handled outreach and how they obfuscate and misrepresent details of the project (green space being rooftops and sidewalks???) and it really just doesn't give us a great impression. So am i impugning people's motives? I'd say we have some pretty solid evidence here that this is AT THE VERY LEAST, a highly non-transparent affair...and perhaps more than that. IF they want to clear it all up and show otherwise, it would be pretty easy to do...so us the open tender (RFP, bids) and the justifications for the choice of VMG. AT that point, I"d be more willing to suck up the fact that my merit standards might be too high. However, it feels increasingly like VMG is pulling a power play here. Is that the reality of our system at this point in history? Perhaps. Do i have to like it? no. Should i call it as i see? I think i should.
I feel sad that Rebecca Mills and Malcolm Kenton (whom I know) and Peyton Chung consider this site, and the government cronyism that has produced the Kennedy Center-era design that will (yes) obliterate it, so superficially. Their simple views remind me of myself when I was a kid, drawn unthinkingly to the shiny and new. Ironically, I grew up in the 1960s, when the design for McMillan Town Center would have been considered cutting-edge.
Notice how VMP never shows in its campaigns the black office buildings we highlight.
We've also found that many of the folks arguing for the VMP plan, such as the Coalition for Smarter Growth, are actually linked in some way to or sponsored by the developers. If you follow us on Twitter @McMillanPark, you'll see that the CSG refuses to make public its connections to the corporations it proclaims to be proud to be associated with.
Mr. Kenton fails to mention that over 100 people attended the surplus meeting on Thursday. Of the over 40 allowed to speak, only three -- Mr. Kenton, Cheryl Cort and Barrie Danneker -- supported the surplus designation. Over 40 opposed it. Moreover, our petition opposing the VMP plan has gathered nearly 3,000+ signatures of DC residents. The petition is not anonymous and includes the signers' address.
VMP claims there is a silent majority for its poor plan but is unable to produce these people in any significant way.
Nearly 3,000 DC residents believe we can do better than a plan that destroys 80-90% of the historic structures of the site (according to the Historic Preservation Review Board) and relies on a bus stop and bike and car share to handle the significant increase in traffic that will occur on Michigan Ave, First Street and North Capitol.
Compare the VMP plan with that proposed by Collage City at www.mcmillanpark.com. If the city had engaged in a competitive bidding process in the first place, we would be reviewing a quality plan, like that of Collage City, that Washingtonians could support.
DC is sitting on a $1 billion surplus, and every new condo and restaurant adds to that revenue. It's untrue that we are in such dire straits that we must rush into VMP's poor plan.
It's time communities drove the development process and not the wealthy and well-connected developers using front groups, like the CSG, to push their agenda.
www.friendsofmcmillan.org
You dont represent the prevailing position on this issue in the neighborhood. One of your most outspoken people is from several neighborhoods away. You publicly yell down anyone who disagrees with you. You have no viable plan. Your criticisms arent based in facts. The people in your group who are from Bloomingdale are among the most annoying, power hungry, know-it-alls around. Your petition numbers was the result of misinformation and your subsequent mischaracterization of why people signed the petition. In short, you are a sham. its time to sit down and shut up.
Sure, better than nothing, but...
BTW, thank you for giving us another chance to highlight VMP's plans. Each time an article like this appears, the number of signers of our petition jumps by about 100. At this rate, we may top 4,000 by the end of the month.
Thought so.
I find it amazing that your campaign of misinformation to get everyone to conflate "McMillan Park" with the sand filtration plant has succeeded. The area to be redeveloped was never a park. The area around the reservoir was a park.
2. We need housing in this city. We're pricing out the young and hungry who build businesses and careers, create jobs and want to start a family. They'll move elsewhere if we as a city can't even facilitate the growth of housing stock to meet demand. Our loss will be some other city's gain and our economy will suffer. I'm partial to market-rate housing since that keeps housing affordable at all levels, but I understand and appreciate the need for more subsidized housing as well. I'd propose replacing the medical office space with even more condos, a portion of which would be affordable or designated senior housing. Scrap the apartments- there's enough rental buildingsprouting up in NOMA and Brookland.
3. VMP hasn't given a good reason for not restoring more cells in the designated park area. Sure, it would cost money to restore the cells, but they are a key part of the historical legacy of the space. I think this is a reasonable ask from the community and one that VMP should give on. I'd even by fine if VMP converted them to a unique retail space and profited from it.
4. I love FOM as an organized group pressing for improvements to the plan. I don't like it when they dip their toes in NIMBY'ism by noting that buildings are too high, too much traffic, not enough parking, or some people's views will be altered. This is a growing city and this part of the city in particular needs to develop.
5. I think a 50/50 park/condos split is reasonable and let's each side get more or less what it wants (and build out the rest of the Hospital Center with more offices). If VMP can't make boat loads of money off the condos and retail it's doing something wrong. If FOM isn't happy with 50% park space, they're getting greedy too given that this isn't NYC and David Bowie and his celebrity buddies aren't going to come to our rescue like what happened with the High Line. DC and the city has proven time and time again it is incapable of doing the far-sighted, ideal thing, and it's naive to think that these deeply-rooted institutional problems in our city government can be wished away with signatures on a piece of paper. Given the history of neglect and poor planning decisions inflicted on this part of the city (North Capital as 6 lane highway, the debacle of Florida/NY Ave intersection, etc), city officials owe it to make sorting this out a priority, and expending money if needed to get it right.
6. Why isn't the street car on Michigan a greater priority? It looks like this one isn't going in for a decade or so. If transit is an issue here, and I think it is, why not bump it up the priority list?
The "McMillan Park Committee" has further undermined their credibility by backing an economically unfeasible development proposal drawn up mostly by undergrads, in a tacit admission that the status quo is not a realistic option. The status quo actually makes flooding worse: the grassy field hides a concrete lid across the entire site, such that development would actually *reduce* runoff.
A fast-growing city in a fast-growing region, with already outlandish housing prices and a narrow tax base, needs every available opportunity for more space. Growth in DC is a both/and proposition, not an either/or. As it is, D.C. needs ~500 housing units every month to keep up with population growth, and under the Sustainable DC Plan (whose goals the Sierra Club might consider supporting?) that growth will continue for another 20-30 years. The scale of development proposed for McMillan would require redeveloping a mile of vacant lots -- a tall order in a city that's 10 miles wide -- or 500+ acres of exurban habitat. Everyone agrees that this site is a rare redevelopment opportunity, but VMP has the only sensible and realistic proposal on the table.
But the best part is the last sentence:
"To avoid gridlock, the VMP plan would require the construction of a Metro station."
Would a stand alone station take care of the traffic problems?
1. How, and therefore when, various phases of the streetcar network get built is entirely dependent on the forthcoming streetcar PPP contract. At this point, everything in the streetcar plan is purely speculative; phasing is ultimately up to the eventual PPP awardee.2. The High Line and Millennium Park (to clarify: both were funded through appropriations, donations, underlying development rights and/or TIF on adjacent development) draw such huge numbers of visitors that they both create traffic jams, and so will "McMillan Park" if it's similar. Or maybe its advocates are being disingenuous and demanding a private park for themselves.
Conflict of interest disclosure: I have none. The true vested interests are the NIMBY neighbors, who demand that the rest of us DC taxpayers shower them with $millions in construction costs and foregone tax revenue.
In the past, I have appreciated GGW's focus on evidence-based analysis of transit funding and road design. So...evidence please! Mr. Kenton, do you know how much it would cost to restore the unreinforced underground structures and make the McMillan site safely usable as greenspace, supporting your claim that it is "too costly"? It seems like that information would be a more effective starting point for a discussion, allowing individuals to reach their own informed conclusions about the competing merits of parks, affordable housing and tax revenue.
And as for transit: this would be a great location for a separated yellow line to at some point run to. In the meantime, I agree that upping the priority of the Calvert-Michigan streetcar line is an absolute must (though would also add that without dedicated ROW that's going nowhere fast. Or everywhere slow). Dedicated bus lines on North Capitol would be a good start, as well.
In general, though, the renderings look good but as others have pointed out I don't see howany park here - in a standalone plot that doesn't really link any centers of employment or commerce - is going to generate that kind of foot traffic. It's definitely not going to be a destination, whether developed or maintained as a park, and there's little reason to use it for cutting through; there's not a lot of "there" there.
Call it "McMillan Down Under".
A better plan would be just to make Michigan ave. easier and safer to cross.
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/new_condo_supply_in_dc_area_hits_record_low_as_sales_pace_accelerates/6485
And there's not a lot in the pipeline either. As someone who lived in DC as a young renter and now 30 something condo owner, I think the challenge is much greater on the middle class person trying to move into the city and raise a family. Young folks have the option of roommates, renting a basement level apartment in a row house, or one of the fancy new places that are currently being built throughout the city. And every condo can be rented out, but it doesn't work the other way generally. If you think there's more condos being built then rentals by those cranes that dot our skyline, you haven't been paying attention. If someone wants to stick around the city, buy and raise a family, send their kids to local public schools, your option is rowhouse or condo. Rowhouses aren't going to be enough to keep up with demand, even if they keep getting converted to condos (which, if we build more condos won't have to happen!). Condos, including, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom condos will be a great way for the city to accommodate these new families. Otherwise this city is going to turn into NYC- the wealthy have tony rowhouses, while the working class has a diminishing amount of public housing slots, and the middle class moves to the burbs. There is another way, and the city here should do the right thing.
2. My recollection is that there was an RFP issued and multiple applicants submitted, and that the VMP proposal was chosen.
3. as others have mentioned, it's unclear that there is demand for medical office there. Yes, it should go into the WHC campus, but VMP doesn't own the WHC campus, they expect to own that land, hence their proposal.
It could be a kind of biomedical office park, with interaction with the CUA academic program, potentially HU, etc., and CUA's proposals for a research park on land they own on the west side of Harewood Rd. (ex-AFRH land that Congress forced AFRH to sell to CUA).
But the way that the medical industry is shaking out, I wonder if there is really demand for "doctors offices" in that location as more and more medical professions are directly linked to hospital groups, and in that location Medstar rules.
4. McMillan Down Under... cf. Atlanta Underground. If it were well located, maybe it could fly. It won't there.
5. vacant plots on N. Capitol? There aren't any, except for the parking lot at NY Ave. adjacent to the old People's Drug warehouse.
6. While generally I am not in favor of tunneling etc. I have come around on creating a tunnel to divert commuting traffic away from the neighborhoods, because of the pernicious effect it has on the neighborhoods. That could be from around Michigan Ave. to the MoCo border (Blair Road). But it won't ever happen.
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/11/tunnelized-road-projects-for-dc-and.html
McMillan Park was a central part of the McMillan Plan and was fenced off because integrated couples were spotted there in the 40's when DC was hyper-segregated.
Why do we never hear proposals to concrete over Olmstead's Central Park in NYC for development?
Just as with the freeway wars in the 60's, this may be a time for massive civil disobedience to tear down the McMillian fence.
The crooks running DC gov't and the developer shill groups are always going to be for development that lines their pockets.
One of the most insightful pieces on parks in an urban setting is found in Christopher Alexander's masterful "A Pattern Language," in pattern 60: "Accessible Green." Alexander and colleagues actually measured park usage and interviewed park visitors and concluded that people love parks, but will only travel about 3 minutes to visit one, which is about 750 feet if you're walking. They summarize: "People need green open places to go to; when they are close they use them. But if the greens are more than three minutes away, the distance overwhelms the need."
A focus on the size of a park is misguided. Bigger doesn't mean better. What makes a park successful is the number of people who are close to it. Take as a comparison Dupont Circle and Barnard Hill Park. Barnard Hill Park is huge, and empty. Dupont Circle is probably the most successful park in the District. It is not large, but its proximity for lots of people, all throughout the day, ensures that it is used to its fullest.
And this is just about making a park successful. It is true that DC cannot control what development happens outside its borders. But if we do not find ways to accommodate more residents in the already-urbanized parts of our region, then a growing population will have no choice but to keep expanding outward.
More generally, its sort of ironic if NIMBY-fueled opposition to densification of urbanized areas leads developers to focus on greenfield sites, whose present lack of development means that there are no NIMBYs to object loudly. A save-this, save-that approach to fighting development is perhaps the ultimate in losing a war by winning every single battle.
You can see that the Park is the area next to the Reservoir (and that this connects to Soldier's Home Park without Michigan Avenue or the hospital in the way).
I'd rather see that somewhat restored, with McMillan Park reopened, the green strip between hospital and Park place reconnected - with the roads buried - and at least the southern section of Soldier's Home returned to the city as a Park.
But the Filtration site is not, nor was it ever, a park.
There is no doubt that this development will bring hundreds if not thousands - of new cars to the already congested and chocked area. Mayor Gray - in his remarks after launching his Sustainable DC vision said (from WJLA):
“We’ve got to get people out of automobiles,” says Mayor Gray. “We can’t add 250,000 people and add a proportional amount of cars.”
But that's what this development does - the buses can not handle more people - as is, there is no plan for streetcars (until phase 3), there sure as heck is no real plan for a Metro station, bikeshare docks just aren't going to cut it and what's left - cars on roads is unsustainable.
I take the 80 to and from work each day and some days traffic can be backed up from NYAve to Michigan. Add another 800 cars into that mess and it's a huge recipe for disaster.
- Sam Shipley
Stronghold
Enough is enough: this is the best chance that we have to finally use this site for the betterment of the city. I have written my city council members, DMPED and the HPRB in support of moving this forward. I urge anyone who wants to ever set foot on this site in their lifetime to do so as well.
I think that lines up fine. If you acknowledge there will be new car trips made you have to acknowledge the new ones made by other modes and demonstrate that those will be less than new car trips.
Also, for this statement: "Meanwhile while transit improvements aren't coming immediately they are actively being planned (in addition what's already there)."
What are you referring to?
Right?
The Soldier's Home had a large development plan for their lands to the northwest of the North Cap/Irving interchange. I would love to see that development happen, extending the city grid to a new area of town, make the Hospital Center less of an 'island' land use.
The green space at the Soldier's Home should then involve closing the golf course and opening the area to the public as a large park - a much greater park than what you're going to get from an old sand filtration site.
The land has been an idle eyesore for as long as anybody can remember. The whole area between Catholic U. and Howard is a sort of suburban dead zone. Build something.
And I realize that transportation is District issue and not really within the purview of the developers, but they and the city are clearly acting as a team in this project. If the city wants its tax revenue and the politicians supporting the development want to keep their jobs, they should make sure that major holes in the plan, like transportation/traffic control, are adequately addressed, so that the downsides don't outweigh the positive aspects of development for those already living here.
Serious questions:
1) if the "friends" win and VMP walks, how much longer do you think the site would sit as-is?
2) assuming (a major assumption) that the college-kid design would actually be built instead of the VMP plan, how long would be acceptable? 15 years? 25? 30? How long would be too long for you?
One hates to question anyone’s motives, but it would be wonderful to know what the “friends’” motives really are.
Bravo to Councilmember McDuffy for supporting this wise step forward!
2. and yes, thm is right both about the "Accessible Green" issue -- he referenced Christopher Alexander but Jane Jacobs made similar points -- and the need for a master plan for parks in the city (the process btw gets kicked off on Saturday, although I can't attend).
3. I mentioned above, how I advocated for tying transit approvals to development approvals in the Brookland Small Area Plan.
The add'l comments remind me that I was more specific, using the example of Potomac Yard. That area is maxed out on traffic. So to be able to develop specific projects, they have to meet various transportation demand/traffic reduction targets, or they can't build/can't get permits from the respective jurisdictions.
It's why there is a "voluntary" "Transportation Management Association" set up to cover the development, for both its ArCo and Alexandria portions, why there are plans to build an infill subway station, etc.
I argued for similar provisions with regard to development at both McMillan and AFRH as part of the Brookland Small Area Plan. OP was totally uninterested in pursuing this. My understanding is that DDOT was more open to the concept.
4. In any case, if people in govt. listened to me on this stuff, which for the most part they don't, DDOT/OP would create a TMA including VMP, Washington Hospital Center, and AFRH as primary members, and CUA, HU, and Trinity as secondary members, and integrate transportation planning and demand management in that broad geography.
And permits for construction should not be granted unless it happens.
Creation of and mandated participation should be part of the land disposition agreement between DC and VMP, it should be a required element of any land disposition contracts between AFRH and whomever they sell land to.
This is the kind of stuff that focused community groups and ANCs should be demanding.
It happens with ANC6C and ANC6A. I am not sure how much it happens elsewhere in the city.
2. Don't knock college students and their planning projects. Many great projects have come out of such efforts. E.g., the Atlanta Beltline concept was first put forward in a master's thesis.
Couldn't I have been given a few grand for this blog entry?
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2007/07/rethinking-metropolitan-branch-railroad.html
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/02/brookland-planning.html
So, what should we do, just get out of the way and let VMP do whatever they want? No. I don't really like the design either, but the better option is to work within the framework of VMP plan. Those advocating against the surplus and against VMP are effectively advocating for an indefinite continuation of the status quo.
The friends of McMillan plan, as much as it is one, doesn't even attempt to interpret history.
Yes, the project will add cars, but likely not as many cars as those 800 residents would own if they lived elsewhere.
We can (and should) scrutinize the details of the project to make sure that DC is getting a good deal in exchange for the land, but this really does seem like a great deal for the city.
2. The Washington Hospital Center is not entirely desperate for land to build offices on. There are more than enough surface parking lots there which should be used for high rises before parkland is used.
3. Trammell Crow is requiring the city not only to give the park away but also to add $55M for them to proceed.
Nothing happens when there is not consensus on a project involving city assets, city subsidies, a designated historic landmark, etc. There's clearly no consensus on this project and that's a sure thing nothing will be built.
The best thing may be if the citizens do in fact tear the fence down and re-claim the park.
Someone else posted this earlier. To me it is clear that there are two distinct spaces in the area in question. "McMillan Park" is clearly circumscribed by boundaries around the reservoir. The site of the future VMP development is obviously labeled "Filtering Plant." Again, the map is from 102 years ago. Are you saying 1) that "Filtering Plant" is the same as a park, or 2) that a park was here before the Filtering Plant, or 3) after? Those seem to be the only possibilities that exist.
If this is not correct please post links reflecting the veracity of your claim.
It makes clear the sand filtration site is a part of it as does the underlying application.
Olmsted incorporated the silos into his park design.
Relevant segment:
"In 1906, the reservoir was designated as a park and a memorial to the late Senator James McMillan who had died in 1902, and before implementation of the plan which bears his name. According to the park plans designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1908 following the reservoir's designation as a park two years earlier, the filtration plant was landscaped in a formal manner, complementing the industrial character of the various engineering elements..."
So, they built the reservoir and a park around it. Then they said "hey, let's put an industrial site over there, but let's make it look good by having some landscaping around it." Landscaping an industrial site is a good idea, but the fact that an industrial site is landscaped doesn't make it a "park," it just makes it a landscaped industrial site.
This makes it very clear that the "McMillan Reservoir" and the "Slow Sand Filtration Plant" were and are considered separate spaces. They are treated as such in the application and just rolled into one "historic district." I submit that the "friends" know this, they just want to conflate the two for the purposes of making their arguments, which now seem more clear: they want nothing to happen to the site and/or they want to tear down the fence and occupy it a some sort of anti-government/anti-corporate social demonstration.
Tom, I respect you for just going ahead and admitting it. Good luck in your movement to free Stronghold and Bloomingdale of the pernicious effects of corporations, including Boundary Stone, Rustik, Aroi Thai, Red Hen, Bacio, the dry cleaners on RI and 1st, New Reservoir Market and Grassroots Gourmet through tearing down a fence and camping in an industrial site: capitalist bastards!
Is it your position that the map from 1909 (really 1911) is wrong? Because I can find many others that show the same thing.
What else have you got? Any land records or newspaper accounts? Any original source material that backs the claim?
A. The status quo
B. The proposed design
C. Some other ideal design that maximizes local benefits at a profit the developer can live with.
Obviously, you'd want to move from B closer to C. But you can't let the developer know that you like B more than A. Or else they constantly threaten to walk. You have to make them believe that you prefer A to B. That you will blow the whole thing up if they don't move closer to C. [Think republicans with the debt ceiling or the two powers during the cold war with nukes]
If I thought the friends group were brilliant negotiators signaling that they were insane people ready to kill the whole deal to win concessions from the developers then I would admire them. But right now, I think they're just crazy.