Allow me to introduce myself: My name is Jeff Soule. I am a fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, Executive Committee member of the ICOMOS scientific committee on Cultural Towns and Villages, Treasurer of US ICOMOS and currently Director of Outreach and International Programs at the American Planning Association.
Today however, I am writing to you simply as a fellow DC resident – albeit one with decades of experience in smart growth and planning. I have always cherished the beauty and value of the McMillan Sand Filtration plant and like most of you have followed the redevelopment discussion closely over the last seven years.
As a long-standing advocate of historic preservation, it saddens me to see the McMillan site sit for years while the same arguments recycle, zombie-like through meeting after meeting. Vision McMillan Partners’ plan for the site is well thought-out, sensitive to environmental, historic and economic conditions and most importantly, creates a place of lasting value for future generations to enjoy, while preserving the essence of the tangible and intangible values that the McMillan site represents. It also fits within the new Green Infrastructure approach that is now championed by WASA (http://www.dcwater.com/news/listings/press_release627.cfm).
I urge everyone to review VMP’s plans carefully. I truly believe that when residents study them without prejudice - they will see the thought, experience and sensitivity that the plans represent, and I think they will also support it.
With that said, I would like to share with you some of the reasons – most deeply rooted in years of planning and historic preservation - why I support Vision McMillan Partners’ plans for redevelopment of the site. The VMP plan:
- Creates much-needed housing near thousands of new jobs;
- Preserves the important historical aspects of the site in a useful and integrated way;
- Provides USABLE, meaningful open space as part of the preservation approach that will engender diverse uses by a wide variety of people;
- Does not represent “too much density.” In fact, once complete, the number of residential units will still be well below the average residential density of the surrounding census block groups;
- Creates a thriving, walkable community with convenient access to key amenities that we currently lack;
- Provides a boost to local retailers and injects a tremendous amount of investment and tax revenues locally.
I hope you will take time to thoroughly review the VMP plan and join me in supporting positive and meaningful redevelopment of this important landmark.
Sincerely,
Jeff Soule, FAICP
|
|
I would be interested in several things:
ReplyDelete1) Where does Jeff Soule live? He says "we" current lack amenities. I assume then that Jeff Soule lives in Pleasant Plains, Bloomingdale or Stronghold? The only communities contiguous to the site.
2) Where do these thousands of new jobs come from? New Jobs? Thousands ? REALLY?
3) How does having national level retail at McMillan provide a boost to local retailers? For instance, how is having a Harris Teeter helping Ken Wee at Farm to City? How is having a Chipotle or a Cheesecake Factory at McMillan going to help Stu at Big Bear? Sure we need some amenities, but forgive me, but i see national retail chain competition at McMillan as detrimental to local business not a boost. Unless VMP is committing to only local retailers, but i missed that in the VMP proposal.
I think that the current plan has potential, but I'm unsure that i would have said the same things as Jeff. It still needs further refinements to be a "useful" space. If Jeff is a professional planner than surely he sees the difficulty in large unprogrammed park space and a Olmsted walk with no benches. Or a huge park like this without even a playground for kids. Or a 25meter pool for thousands and thousands of new residents. Or a community center with no indoor gym or space. I'm not a professional city planner and that is evident to me. Not to mention just the fact that this site could have elements like Paddington Reservoir Park (Sydney) or things like that which would make it truly extraordinary.
C'mon.... this sort of smacks of another PR puff piece paid for by VMP. We don't need professional city planners to tell us what we have here....let's simply look at it at face value. If you like it and are really to sign up fine, but i see alot lacking that i want to see integrated before i give my support.
ah...i see... seems APA is the primary nonprofit lobby that represents real estate developers. Somehow unsurprising.
ReplyDeleteTodd,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to answer some of your questions, as you either missed the information presented at the meeting, or chose not to listen:
1) Does it really matter where Jeff Soule lives? He's a DC resident, who I would imagine would want to use some of the amenities that would be available in the Envision McMillan plan. Are you only allowed to use the amenities in your neighborhood, do they check your ID when you go to the grocery store in another part of the city, or when you go shopping for some clothes outside of your neighborhood?
2) Yes, Thousands! Thousands of new jobs will become available, with 3,000 NEW construction jobs, and an additional 3,200 PERMANENT jobs with the grocery store, retail and the medical facility on site. This has been promised to us by the development team, and I don't think they would throw numbers like that out lightly - I'm sure you've seen the flyers at the meetings and on their website and facebook pages with these stats.
3) Let's be serious, do you think that just because they're bringing retail, that the other businesses in the area are going to suffer. Don't you think with more foot traffic and a larger population in the area, the local businesses will do better? At the last meeting I was at, they talked about a local business "popup incubator" to introduce local community based businesses to a larger audience with the goal to help them gain enough attention to move to a permanent location. Are you a local business owner that will be affected? I don't see Ken Wee or Stu posting on here talking about how this is going to hurt their businesses.
What I'm most confused is about how you think this is an unprogrammed park?? They have pledged to create a 17,000 sq foot community center with pool, fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, gallery space and a connection to one of the preserved underground cells. And maybe you just haven't looked closely enough at the plans, but at the meeting the presenter specifically talked about how some of the design elements were inspired by Paddington Reservoir Park.
Todd, you seem like you're very interested in this project and want to see a lot come from it, but with all your posts you seem all over the place. You complain about retail and groceries coming in and don't like the amenities offered, but do you come to the meetings to express what you are looking for, specifically from the project. The only way we're going to get as much as we want out of this project is by talking with the presenters at our community meetings instead of just decrying the plans because it isn't EXACTLY what we want yet. There seem to be a LOT of great elements in the plan, many of which you express that you want, but your bias against the people supporting the project blocks your open mind to what an opportunity it is to the community. I for one am excited about the day that the fences come down around the park and we can actually use it together as a community. That's why I'm a supporter of this project, and a Neighbor for McMillan. If you or anyone else who reads this is interested, check out their facebook page and ask for a "Create McMillan Park" sign to show your support.
Caira, Yes, i own a house only a few blocks from it and I've been involved from 2007, participating in every meeting until i moved overseas in 2010. I met personally several times with Tania, with Matt Bell and with the landscape guy. But those meetings accomplished little. The good things in this plan are really the outcome of some unforeseen circumstances--flooding in Bloomingdale most notably-that resulted in the fortunate creation of the large park portion. VMP's design team has mostly been reactive to HPRB and the gov't..
ReplyDeleteWell it does't really matter where Jeff lives..only in so far as the way this is written he's in the boat with us. WE need the amenities he says. But let's not pretend that this is local folks doing local development. This is a powerful set of mega developers coming in and pushing their project thru the gov't. Jeff represents the developers...APA is their lobby.
ReplyDeleteThousand of temporary construction jobs isn't the same thing as permanent new long term jobs. In fact, most of the jobs on this site will just be construction worker commuters who will work at this site for a few years or existing jobs from other medical centers. The medical buildings will be staffed by folks from across the street at WHC...ok maybe a few new medical offices will open, maybe but not thousands of permanent jobs. Again, it's blowing smoke another case of deceptive advertising. Just like when they claimed all that open space that turned out to be roofs, sidewalks and tree boxes. Take away all the temp construction jobs and transfers from WHC and you've got a few hundred at most. This isn't new with VMP.
You may be right that additional housing may result in more biz for local folks. I am uncertain. Its only 700 units of additional housing. Even Jeff mentions that this isn't high density development. Does that offset the competition from big box and national retail that local businesses will face? I would have to look at what happened in Columbia Heights to local businesses once all the national level retail came in... my guess is its a wash. 8 acres of this park is unprogrammed..it's a fact . It's large open fields surrounded by a walkway. There are no gardens, no outdoor cafes (except one in the N. service court that is in the road median (another great idea). no playgrounds, no place for set aside for markets, VMP will say that's what the community wanted --unprogrammed space--which is what they told me personally.. (in fact, hundreds of people in the community wanted different things). You had a spray park at one time behind the community center (where is it now?), they had a forest of columns concept (similar to Paddington)..it also has been removed. You do have an amphitheater with no staging area. Good luck performing knee deep in water. Feel free to point those things out to me in the current plan if you can find them...I cannot find them. The community center...a 25 meter pool will be like a bath tub compared to the number of folks that will hope to use it. A gym and fitness center? Ok...let's see the plans for it. I don't see any room for that in the current mockups and fly throughs.
We are both excited about a new McMillan. I'm just holding VMP to a higher standard. I think that if they are going to get paid to develop this design by the city and then be given one of the last great pieces of public land in the District, then they need to show a creative vision and design something extraordinary that benefits more than their own wallet. What they have here is not that....it is mediocre. For my part, i am in talks with VMP. But Anne Corbett announced recently that they "don't have any plans to change ANYTHING (emphasis) in the plan. So with that sort of openness to discourse, we'll do what we've always done to move them VMP off the dime ....organize, decry, attend zoning meetings, write letters, blog, comment, visit reps....and point out this sort of disingenuous communication when we feel it's appropriate.
Todd,
DeleteI just want to clarify one item here. I believe the forest columns concept was withdrawn specifically at the behest of the HPRB. Anne or Tania can correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's how I understand that decision.
Mathew Bader
BCA MAG Representative
Hi Mat ! I do think that VMP and HPRB should reconsider this concept. I think that it clearly contributes to a historical understanding of the site. And it is a creative readapting of the space. I have difficulty seeing how they can reference Paddington Reservoir without it.
DeleteCairaDances,
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate reading your input but we should clarify some things here:
1) Vision McMillan Partners, LLC is NOT contributing either a community center or park. I believe that both are to be funded by the District (and indirectly the taxpayers). Please correct me if you've read otherwise, but that is how I understand the matter. The District will also fund all of the historic preservation efforts along with preparing the various pad sites for vertical development prior to selling certain land parcels to Vision McMillan Partners, LLC. The District also pays for affordable housing through subsidies provided to VMP, LLC. VMP, LLC is ONLY paying for the development of their buildings.
2) The projections are that this project will create 3,200 permanent jobs and 3,000 construction jobs TOTAL. Of these, only 1,239 permanent jobs are slated for DC residents and only 1,214 construction jobs are for DC residents. Further, of the permanent jobs for DC residents, 161 will average less than $30,000 a year and 1,081 will average less than $76,000 a year (although this is being generous). Both values are less than the cost projections for the affordable housing components on the site. This is all from the VMP, LLC economic analysis.
3) I attended the small business meeting that was held a few weeks back. There was only ONE former small business representative in attendance (owner of a hair salon 20 years ago). The other attendees were myself, some Friends of McMillan advocates, Dianne Barnes and then Jamie Fontaine and Tania Jackson of VMP, LLC (both associated with community outreach).
4) Todd is actively involved with this project and serves on the McMillan Advisory Group Park Committee. This is probably why he is posting so often with park related materials (although I cannot speak for him).
Thank you for the feedback.
Mathew Bader
Bloomingdale Civic Association McMillan Advisory Group Representative
Hello, Todd: I am interested in your comments regarding the number of permanent jobs that are proposed to be set aside for DC residence. Based on your numbers, it is currently a bit more than 30%. Do you have some examples to share of other projects in DC that have set aside 30%, or more permanent jobs for DC residence?
ReplyDeleteHi there,
ReplyDeleteNo i don't.... But honestly i really don't care that much about the jobs argument. I don't think that the people in the immediate communities will be working there (unless you happen to be a construction worker or a medical practitioner or bag person at Harris Teeter (nothing wrong with that mind you). I'm sure that the city does care as they do about the tax revenue generated. Fair enough.
But i think that the greater issue here is that VMP was basically given this contract by NCRC. Seems like it's becoming more and more clear (see Philip Blair's testimony) that it was under somewhat dubious circumstances. At any rate, if they are going to be just flat out given a huge piece of taxpayer's land in the district to develop for tens of millions of dollars and then actually paid to do the design work as they go (gravy upon gravy), then it seems that the communities next to the site should also gain something. Seems some folks are ok with what's on the table right now. I think that if they project into the future a bit, they will probably be regretting some of the details later on. While you sit in that field and think "I wish i had a dog to throw a frisbee to" or "...gawd it sure is hot here in this open field, i could have used a beverage from that non-existent cafe"...or perhaps "i sure would like to take junior to McMillan park, but maybe i'll go to the Ledroit park instead because they didn't put a playground at McMillan." Or
I think I'll spare myself the fungal infection and the trip to the dermatologist and swim at Turkey Thicket." I think that we should really push to get something a bit better thought out. I don't really any problems with the layout or the basic content ....but there have to be some fairly major infrastructural changes for this to be something really great. Right now its really great...for their ROI.
Wait, do you want VMP to buy everyone a dog to go with the park? No thanks :)
DeleteNote that the VMP plan includes a park with a playground, and ground-level retail less than a thousand feet from the park.
Are you really claiming that the city-run pool in the VMP plan will cause diseases that you won't get in the city-run pool at Turkey Thicket? I don't understand this claim at all.
Do you have more specific objections *and specific suggested amendments to the plan* that address those objections (while preserving the viability of the entire project -- which means keeping the office buildings and residences, as well as anything that WASA and the HPRB have insisted on) posted online somewhere? Because otherwise it just sounds like you're grasping at straws to find an excuse to kill the project that will turn the industrial waste site in my back yard into six thriving city blocks.
No.....I"m not necessarily trying to kill the project. I'm trying to say that the present plan is NOT good enough yet to merit this particular piece of land. Right now it's still on the balance an opportunity lost. I also said pretty straight up that i have no problems with the basic content or layout. I've gone into quite a bit of detail in myriad past posts about the infrastructural changes that need to be made to allow this park portion (cuz the rest is a lost cause in my book) a really great public space. There are probably only 10 major changes that really need to occur now. Other things can come later IF those major changes are made....
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you get that there are many different perspectives...not just that of FOM and that of Commish... I am somewhere in the middle. My take is that VMP got this deal from NCRC under very odd conditions and the LEAST that can happen is that they come up with a great public space to merit all the money they will make on sweetheart deal. This design is not great (yet). But it can be..... FOM may disagree...and if they can succeed in their endevour to make the entire thing as a park...all the better. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but i think that, under the circumstances this deal is a fait accompli and VMP has very powerful connections in the DC gov't. But I do think VMP has alot to accomplish before they get the final green light and i think that it is our responsibility to mobilize at each point to make sure that they deliver something truly great for the benefit of all. You might be ready to throw your hand in....I"m not there yet.
Todd, from the perspective of this community member, the awarding of the contract is a completely different issue than what is developed at the site, and conflating the two just muddies the waters. If you don't like the contracting process, advocate for accountability in our government. As for the building plans, if you can find another developer with the resources and credibility to complete the project in a timely manner that is willing to give a firm commitment to completing a better design on the site at a price that is feasible for the city, then you have a strong bargaining position. Otherwise, not so much.
DeleteHi Alex... I agree that the two issues are separate and if it were in my power, i would simply revoke VMP's deal and open this up for full and open competition. However, alot of people seem ok with it. I deal with federal procurement processes on a daily basis and so I"m struck by how non-transparent and really sketchy this whole process is-- esp. in the light of the Kwame Brown, Harry Thomas and other council scandals (esp. considering their participation in this particular project). But whatever...most people respond "so you're SURPRISED at how corrupt this whole process is???" ...which is kind of sad. So in fact i do advocate for accountability. But not alot of people care about that it seems.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other point, Across the USA and the world there are hundreds of such development teams that can provide superior designs and services and had this bidding process been opened up to more than the 5 teams that were shortlisted, i'm sure that we'd have alot more to look at and consider....but again, that didn't happen.
But honestly i don't really see your point: Is it that i need to be so outraged by the blatant corruption in DC gov't that i can't also try to make this development the best that it can be? I'm afraid i'm more pragmatic than that.... talk to a Naderite if you want that.
No Todd, I am concerned that your perspective on the contracting is prejudicing you against the VMP plan. You imply, in your comments above, that VMP will have to meet a higher standard than another company would have, because of this contracting process. You also state that, "I"m not necessarily trying to kill the project. I'm trying to say that the present plan is NOT good enough yet to merit this particular piece of land." However, "this piece of land" has been a fenced off industrial ruin, inaccessible to the public for 70 years, and some variation of the present plan may be our only chance to access it within the next 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are involved in the MAG committee regarding the development of the park space/public amenities. That is great, and we should make it the best space for the community that we can get. However, negotiating that deal does not jibe with the philosophy stated above that the contracting process is "the greater issue".
I agree that there is room for improvement in the current plans, but I also think that the majority of the community feels that the current plans (which resulted from years of community input from diverse groups with conflicting priorities) are much better than no plans. I want to be sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Alex (part 1 of response),
DeleteI agree with you that these are two separate discussions: 1) focusing on how to make the best of the current plan put before us, and 2) how we arrived at this current plan.
I just want to clarify some things surrounding the second discussion and the care given to community input. Before the recent plan and before VMP, LLC was ever selected, the community and a number of city employees and technical experts sat down to hash out exactly what was a reasonable scale of development for this site. The conclusions and recommendations that came out of those talks, as published by the DC Office of Planning, are as follows (see this file, attached to the 2006 solicitation - http://mcmillanadvisorygroup.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/24-summary-of-recommendations-for-site-revitalization-febru-1.pdf)
-- The District should retain ownership of the historic site. Development on McMillan should be through a long-term grounds lease structure that allows the District to regain some revenue that is then used to maintain and upgrade public components of the site and in the surrounding neighborhoods.
-- A minimum of 50% (approximately 12.5 Acres) of the McMillan site should be revitalized as publicly accessible open space.
-- The remainder of the site should be developed with low and moderate intensity uses to offset the cost of site stabilization and to provide ongoing revenue from which the publicly funded components on the site (open space, gardens, libraries, etc.) are maintained.
-- McMillan should be zoned to accommodate the following mix of uses at moderate density: publicly accessible open space, a cultural destination (museum and/or memorial), neighborhood serving and destination enhancing retail, and housing.
-- It is more likely that the TYPE I and II Cells will need to be considered for revenue generating uses that help defray ongoing site maintenance costs.
Now, based on these recommendations, NCRC (now essentially DMPED) issued a solicitation for which Vision McMillan Partners, LLC was selected as the Land Development Partner.
Following that selection, NCRC was dissolved and DMPED took over ownership of the site. As DMPED felt it could not longer serve as 'Master Developer' a summary terms sheet was signed between VMP, LLC and the District in December 2007 for VMP, LLC to serve in a new role as Master Developer. The community agreed with this change through a Letter of Commitment also issued and signed in December 2007 (you can find the letter of commitment here: http://mcmillanadvisorygroup.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/mag_ltr_of_commitment.pdf)
Now, that letter explicitly states two things: 1) VMP, the District and MAG comit to using the Office of Planning's "Summary of Recomendations for the site [McMillan Filtration site] Revitalization" February 2002. 2) The terms of this LOC shall be binding upon VMP, the Master Developer, and their prospective successors and assigns. Further this letter was signed by representatives of VMP, LLC, the then project manager from DMPED, McClinton Jackson (now Shiv Newaldass), and Tony Norman (representing the McMillan Park Committee).
The frustration with this project is that essentially those goals for this site were ignored. Specifically, those discussions explicitly state that many uses were found undesirable for the site: High Rise Office, Hospital/Medical Facilities (among other things).
(part 2 of response)
DeleteSo here we are, with a plan that has ignored those recommendations that were laid out. Ignores the initial discussions with the District and the rationale ( I believe) in selecting the development team in the first place. It leaves residents with this ultimatum of, either you agree with this plan or there may be no other plan for the next ten years, even though a case has not been made, economically, for why alternative scenarios are not economically viable.
I understand your concern that if this current plan is not developed then the city may just throw up its hands and say they aren't going to commit to a new development plan. But at the same time, we have to appreciate just how violated a number of residents feel by the plan that is now before us. I personally disagree that the majority of residents are in support of this plan. I believe the majority of residents are opposed to the plan as it stands today or are only in support because the city hasn't presented any other viable alternatives, not because the plan is great on its own merits.
Please excuse the length of this email but I certainly appreciate the time that you take to read all of this stuff.
Mathew Bader
BCA MAG Representative
Well, there really is no getting around the fact that VMP was shortlisted with 4 other teams for reasons that have yet to be explained. There is also no getting around the fact that the consortium team has changed significantly since the bid. This last point alone, under Federal procurement processes, would make the entire bid null and void. So I can't change my perspective that this is a basically flawed, potentially corrupt process.
ReplyDeleteBut i can't also change that I'm going to be involved in whatever goes into that land. And that looks to be this plan from where i stand. It's in my backyard and I'm going to do my best to make sure that what is there is quality.
But if the DC gov't did change it's mind and open up the process for a full and open competition...i'd be the first to applaud this decision.
ReplyDeleteThis is what you get when there is no competition of ideas or design, a soviet-style eyesore:
ReplyDeletehttp://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/new_plans_for_the_mcmillan_sand_filtration_redevelopment/7661