Here you go:
Perhaps I'm a rube, but even if true, I fail to see how people sleeping outside on the grounds of a sand filtration plant 100 years ago should have anything to do with our development choices today.
That small parcel set aside as a "park" in the above diagram is pitiful. Most of the plan is concrete. And the design is as Tysons Corner awful as the Historic Review board says (actually I think Tysons now has higher standards than this turd).But the main point of this proposal, as with much in DC, was corruption and passing money to rich friends and supporters. It's a fitting legacy of the Harry Thomas years.
Anytime you have a proposal to give away for free a large public park to developers to build on it should raise red flags. It would in other places but never does here. I can't imagine NYC getting away with giving Central Park to a friend of Bloomberg's, or SF giving away Golden Gate Park. They're even rioting in Instanbul over this issue.
Is DC the most corruption tolerant city anywhere?
Anytime you have a proposal to give away for free a large public park to developers to build on it should raise red flags. It would in other places but never does here. I can't imagine NYC getting away with giving Central Park to a friend of Bloomberg's, or SF giving away Golden Gate Park. They're even rioting in Instanbul over this issue.
Is DC the most corruption tolerant city anywhere?
So true worthing.I've lived in NE DC on Michigan Avenue for 56 years, and my family has here since 1839. My great great uncle worked on the original roof of Union Station. That crap said, I never viewed that place as anything other than a filtration plant. Having worked many years in renovation in DC from the 70's to the 80's, worked as an engineer for twenty years, and as a member a family of architects and builders, I see the idea of keeping the silos and other silly industrial elements of the plant as juvenile or copying some other project, at best. It is the type of idea that originates from those who have no experience in design or practical matters of planning and construction.
The other stuff about people sleeping on the sidewalks sounds like hogwash urban myth material. Maybe it happened a couple of times, but believe me, if you tried that in the last 50 years, you would have been murdered in your sleep.
Let's do it tastefully and get the tax dollars rolling in ASAP.
The other stuff about people sleeping on the sidewalks sounds like hogwash urban myth material. Maybe it happened a couple of times, but believe me, if you tried that in the last 50 years, you would have been murdered in your sleep.
Let's do it tastefully and get the tax dollars rolling in ASAP.
Tom,Anytime you have a proposal to give away for free a large public park to developers to build on it should raise red flags.
Please. It's not a park. It never was a park. I think we've established that pretty clearly.
[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
Please. It's not a park. It never was a park. I think we've established that pretty clearly.
[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
So it may have been a park, but then functionally wasn't for a long time. Now we have an opportunity to make it public again and provide housing in a city with a huge housing crush (and a limit on the height of buildings) and yet this is exactly as if Central Park is going to be sold for 1$ in order to build a 6 mile long shopping mall.
I can't wait to see what these people will want to "preserve" in a future redesign of the Blue Plains waste treatment plant.
I like the plan. As cool as a park would be it's not really a central enough location (access wise) to merit that scale of investment by the city. This is the best of both worlds. New development, a still substantial ~6 acre? park and they keep the silos that I kind of adore.
The site plan looks incredibly dull and not too site sensitive. As much as I like historical buildings, I would tear down the whole site. Why be held to a site feature of concrete cylinders becasue they're old?For starters the whole length of North Capitol should be built-up, especially that non-sensicle set back at Michigan Ave. The park on the south being elevated seems to turn the sholder to the neighborhood. It should be at street level to allow the community to "walk-in" and handle the grade change with some front facing conco-type towns facing south and some nice stair feature from the internal north-south road. It looks so segregated with the uses on thier own pads. A mixed skyline with finer grain would fit in so much nicer, and from the renderings, it looks like the buildings could be in Hamburg Germany.
Why not relate the open space(s) to the reservoir? Sun setting on the water's surface could make for a memorable view with the skyline (if we can hold on to it). This looks like a bery unimaginative plan for such a large parcel so close to the heart of the city. Seems like a lost opportunity, but maybe those "historic" silos are straight jacketing the whole endevor. I'd love to see an alternate plan with more texture and heart.
Why not relate the open space(s) to the reservoir? Sun setting on the water's surface could make for a memorable view with the skyline (if we can hold on to it). This looks like a bery unimaginative plan for such a large parcel so close to the heart of the city. Seems like a lost opportunity, but maybe those "historic" silos are straight jacketing the whole endevor. I'd love to see an alternate plan with more texture and heart.
Housing isn't fungible, so don't assume that new-market rate housing will increase the number of affordable units.New market-rate housing units won't increase the number of units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income people unless they push the owners of expensive housing units to lower their rents significantly. Probably not going to happen in this market in the short or medium term.
In short new market-rate housing isn't going to help me or anyone else making under 80k actually find a place to live in the next decade.
What market-rate housing could do in the area, however, is further raise rents, making housing less affordable in the neighborhood.
And VMP's plans for affordable housing, last time I checked, are piddling.
In short new market-rate housing isn't going to help me or anyone else making under 80k actually find a place to live in the next decade.
What market-rate housing could do in the area, however, is further raise rents, making housing less affordable in the neighborhood.
And VMP's plans for affordable housing, last time I checked, are piddling.
Thayer,Sunrise on the reservoir was the favorite part of my runs (later in life walks) by the reservoir. Only was just right once in a long while.
I do agree that the buildings look like Crystal City, Part III. Likely a result of the unreasonable demands of the "enlightened" fans of the industrial park.
I do agree that the buildings look like Crystal City, Part III. Likely a result of the unreasonable demands of the "enlightened" fans of the industrial park.
They should daylight Tiber Creek in the SE corner of the project instead of building a pond. Look to what they did in Yonkers with the Saw Mill River -- http://daylightyonkers.com/If FOM really wanted to keep the historical value of the sand filtration site, then they should be pushing for the city to utilize the space for for storm water runoff or build a solar farm on the site. Keep it industrial, that is what is has always been.
For starters the whole length of North Capitol should be built-up, especially that non-sensicle set back at Michigan Ave. The park on the south being elevated seems to turn the sholder to the neighborhood. It should be at street level to allow the community to "walk-in" and handle the grade change with some front facing conco-type towns facing south and some nice stair feature from the internal north-south road. It looks so segregated with the uses on thier own pads.Given the vocal opposition within the neighborhood, I suspect the southern location for the park is by design. The grade change there is certainly a challenge.
I agree that the 'notch' setback at the northeast corner of the site seems odd - I'm not sure what it aims to accomplish.
That said, (as you mention) I also think the preservation of the sand towers naturally forces the hand of any site plan to segment things horizontally, as they have done with this site plan.
As far as relating the open space to the reservoir, I think the opted not to because there's not much of a relation there aside from proximity. And given the barriers that the rapid sand filter site and the reservoir have, I don't think the prosepcts are good to link those open spaces together in a public way:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.92343,-77.011129&spn=0.0026,0.00486&t=h&dg=opt&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.923431,-77.012149&panoid=3LonzuIij5LV7m8L-BCXNw&cbp=12,272.79,,0,6.85
The other benefit of putting the park to the south of the site is that you use that grade to your advantage, with the potential for views down into the city. I'm not certain, but the difference in grade might be enough to see something like the Capitol Dome over the rowhouses that front on Channing St.
I agree that the 'notch' setback at the northeast corner of the site seems odd - I'm not sure what it aims to accomplish.
That said, (as you mention) I also think the preservation of the sand towers naturally forces the hand of any site plan to segment things horizontally, as they have done with this site plan.
As far as relating the open space to the reservoir, I think the opted not to because there's not much of a relation there aside from proximity. And given the barriers that the rapid sand filter site and the reservoir have, I don't think the prosepcts are good to link those open spaces together in a public way:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.92343,-77.011129&spn=0.0026,0.00486&t=h&dg=opt&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.923431,-77.012149&panoid=3LonzuIij5LV7m8L-BCXNw&cbp=12,272.79,,0,6.85
The other benefit of putting the park to the south of the site is that you use that grade to your advantage, with the potential for views down into the city. I'm not certain, but the difference in grade might be enough to see something like the Capitol Dome over the rowhouses that front on Channing St.
They do bring up a good point. The Adams Morgan-Brookland streetcar around the Washington Hospital Center should be fast tracked as should the GA Ave one. DC has a really poor horizontial transit set up apart from metro lines downtown. Of course increased density is an excellent excuse to actually argue for better transit.
Apart from whatever the merits are of developing McMillan (and I'm not an "opponent"), the surplus is premature. The city has not solved the flooding issue yet, and McMillan is a public resource available for that purpose. Two cells may not be enough, and there are viable alternatives that would require most of the site to solve the flooding. The city's medium-term solution (the First Street Tunnel) has flaws, and more transparency from the city is required. The surplus should not happen until the flooding is definitely solved in a manner acceptable to the community.
The VMP plan calls for 160 townhouses with 2 car garages. That doesn't sound like improving traffic flow is a top priority for the developer.
I would like to finally add that if this project has anything to do with Harry Thomas Jr., it should be entirely scrapped for that reason alone. In fact, if he even sniffed or looked at the paperwork, it should be scrapped.In fact, if the developers had any relationship with Harry Thomas Jr., they should be investigated and fined for that reason alone. With HTJ, it is guilty until proven innocent
@ Alex B,
Good point about the grade and views to downtown. Could use a Cardoza Highschool kind of solution or a Meridian Hill Park one with tiers that have an overlook.
Good point about the grade and views to downtown. Could use a Cardoza Highschool kind of solution or a Meridian Hill Park one with tiers that have an overlook.
What's all the talk of views from residences? Aren't the 13-story buildings all dedicated as offices to serve the hospital center?And isn't most of the proposed housing low-income which will not affect the rental market?
The VMP plan calls for 160 townhouses with 2 car garages. That doesn't sound like improving traffic flow is a top priority for the developerIn other words: it's far better to keep traffic flowing (such as it does) for PG County residents who drive in and out every weekday. Let’s preserve DC’s streets as traffic sewers for Maryland commuters.
4. McMillan Down Under... cf. Atlanta Underground. If it were well located, maybe it could fly. It won't there.Richard: The reference was Dupont Downunder, a local example of underground retail/food courts (and/or whatever else might be proposed for the McMilan cells) that won't work.
For those who claim the filtration plant was never a park:The Washington Times, November 9, 1912:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1912-11-09/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1905&index=0&rows=20&words=McMillan+Park&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=District+of+Columbia&date2=1922&proxtext=mcmillan+park&y=-221&x=-1062&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
"The site is one which he would have selected, because there was no project in which he was more concerned than he was in the filtration of the water supply. His friends knew, also, that the most appropriate memorial to him would be an object that should add to the attractiveness of Washington."
The monument referred to is now being erected on the grounds of the filtration plant, McMillan Park, near the head of North Capitol Street.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1912-11-09/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1905&index=0&rows=20&words=McMillan+Park&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=District+of+Columbia&date2=1922&proxtext=mcmillan+park&y=-221&x=-1062&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
"The site is one which he would have selected, because there was no project in which he was more concerned than he was in the filtration of the water supply. His friends knew, also, that the most appropriate memorial to him would be an object that should add to the attractiveness of Washington."
The monument referred to is now being erected on the grounds of the filtration plant, McMillan Park, near the head of North Capitol Street.
by Friends of McMillan Park on Jun 14, 2013 3:23 pm • link • report
"Friends," your reference clearly states the opposite of the point that you are trying to make. This is saying that McMillan Park, a separate space, was once part of "the grounds of the filtration plant." Your mistake is to assume that since the park was carved out of the industrial site, the industrial site is somehow a park. As a matter of comparison, I submit the following example:"The Capitol building is now being erected on the grounds of Washington, DC, the Mall, near the Potomac river."
Just because the Mall was once generally part of Washington, DC it does not mean that all of Washington, DC was once the Mall.
I suspect you already understand this, it just does not comport with your platform. Hence, your continued obfuscation. Sadly, this is typical of your organization. If you will consciously mislead the public on this point why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say?
Just because the Mall was once generally part of Washington, DC it does not mean that all of Washington, DC was once the Mall.
I suspect you already understand this, it just does not comport with your platform. Hence, your continued obfuscation. Sadly, this is typical of your organization. If you will consciously mislead the public on this point why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say?
... and actually, taken literally, I support your cause. If you want to mount an effort to get the federal government, current owners of the land that was once McMillan Park (on the west side of 1st st North of Bryant), I will come to meetings, write politicians, etc.Just stop saying "save McMillan Park" when you really know that what you mean is "save an abandoned industrial site across the street from where McMillan Park once stood from the big, bad evil corporations so that we could potentially, somewhere down the line, do something with it besides the currently proposed plan."
Come on guys, isn't that what you really mean?
Come on guys, isn't that what you really mean?
I'd just like to point out that I think it's hilarious that the newspaper print linked to by Friends of McMillian features a large prominent advertisement for.....a new housing development!
Actually - it's two different ads for two different new housing developments!! Even funnier, one of them is not all that far from the site in question. So, even back then, "greedy developers" were destroying our city by building houses, offices and stores. I plan to fully research the history of my house and, unless I discover that it was built by a nonprofit organization, I will move out and have my house demolished. After all, I wouldn't want to live in a house tainted by someone having made money from its construction. How vulgar...
by rg on Jun 14, 2013 5:24 pm • link • report
Sometimes, you've just got to trust one of the country's best landscape architecture firms when they're working on a project.Check out Nelson Byrd Woltz's website, the other development projects and the national award winning parks that they've designed. Then ask again, "Why on earth wouldn't we want a project of theirs on this site?"
Trust. The. Good. Landscape. Architects.
Trust. The. Good. Landscape. Architects.
"The best thing may be if the citizens do in fact tear the fence down and re-claim the park"Ah, 'People's Park' of Berkeley 2.0 For 30 years afterwards, the so-called "People's Park" became nothing but a haven for homeless youth with rabid dogs, drug-dealers, prostitutes, and nearly destroyed the merchant class of Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Meanwhile, nearby Emeryville became a boom town.
But hey, you "environmentalists" really stuck it to the MAN.
When I hear the NIMBYists using their code words of "corporatist" "the rich" and "developers" I think of Berkeley's debacle with People's Park and how the professional protester class used it for their own purposes.
Look, no development is perfect, but there are a lot of folks who work in air-conditioned offices with cushy federal jobs who've never gotten their hands dirty complaining about something that could be putting a lot of construction trades types to work for 5 years plus.
My Dad was an Army combat engineer and they taught him how to be a master carpenter. He hated working outside, but he hated NIMBYists more because they took money out of his pocket.
As Ving Rhames said in Pulp Fiction "You've lost your L.A. privileges"
At some point after 70 years of inaction while opposing everything for the sake of opposing the "corporatists" you've lost the right to complain.
But hey, you "environmentalists" really stuck it to the MAN.
When I hear the NIMBYists using their code words of "corporatist" "the rich" and "developers" I think of Berkeley's debacle with People's Park and how the professional protester class used it for their own purposes.
Look, no development is perfect, but there are a lot of folks who work in air-conditioned offices with cushy federal jobs who've never gotten their hands dirty complaining about something that could be putting a lot of construction trades types to work for 5 years plus.
My Dad was an Army combat engineer and they taught him how to be a master carpenter. He hated working outside, but he hated NIMBYists more because they took money out of his pocket.
As Ving Rhames said in Pulp Fiction "You've lost your L.A. privileges"
At some point after 70 years of inaction while opposing everything for the sake of opposing the "corporatists" you've lost the right to complain.
by 17BobTrey0 on Jun 14, 2013 10:04 pm • link • report
Friends of McMillan- Do you all realize that the McMillan Filtration Plant included the Sand Filtration and the Reservoir? So, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that the McMillan Park was created on the grounds of the Filtration Plant. It was. And for the ad to reference the park being located close to the head of North Capitol Street, which ended at Michigan Avenue back then. Well, near is not "next to" or even "on", both terms that might have been applicable for a park located on North Capitol Street at the McMillan Sand Filtration Site. I don't think the scribes who wrote the article 100 years ago even imagine that this little phrasing would be used to miscontrue reality. I think they would have even balked at the idea that some people would reinterpret this as you all have.And all of this talk about the Sand Filtration being the McMillan Park, so where on the Filtration site was the Fountain located? Where was this baseball field exactly? Where did people in the previous decades sleep outside, which might me accurate if you're describing homeless people who sleep in parks. I'm just very confused by some of the things you all are claiming. Please help us understan.
Back then, Michigan Avenue was not even there! It was called Bunker Hill Road.
by NE John on Jun 15, 2013 11:33 am • link • report
Can some please say what exactly is affordable housing ie affordable to who and what type of salary are we talking about 100k, 80k, 50k, 30k, 20k, or 15kConcerning the actual plan one question what the hell is the point of the new street plus the alley for the townhouses on both sides couldn't that be done without adding the new street. You could probably have the same amount of houses but bigger or more houses.
Why not create a grid that matches the other side of North Capitol ?
Why not create a grid that matches the other side of North Capitol ?
No comments:
Post a Comment