See this message from Bloomingdale resident Joe Levesque:
Only in the Washington would 18 wonderful underground structures be destroyed. Look what progressive Paris is planning for an unused metro station. We COULD do the same in our city!
Pass this on so others can see the possibilities.
http://inhabitat.com/paris-ghost-metro-stations-could-be-turned-into-subterranean-swimming-pools-and-restaurants/nathalie-kosciusko-morizet-recycling-old-paris-metro-stations-2/?extend=1
and this:
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/11/20/this-abandoned-nyc-tram-station-is-likely-to-become-the-worlds-first-subterranean-park/
Ha. Yeah, I'm sure the crazies in Friends of McMillan would love an underground nightclub.
ReplyDeleteI believe the poster was trying to show creative solutions for those aspects of the site that are slated for demolition. You'll notice the other proposed solutions as well.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find them very creative. Thanks Joe.
Mat
I agree that unique spaces like the cells at McMillan can be used for amazing things. The problem remains that the cells were built with un-reinforced concrete, and are not safe for use.
ReplyDeleteMat, you mention in another post that the developer will pay for their construction, and the city will pay for infrastructure and public space. You asked me how I would feel about getting rid of the medical office buildings, and moving the other buildings north to create more park space. This would certainly give us the option of using more cells that don’t have to support buildings for ideas like those in this post. I would love to have underground markets and parks. I would also love to clear some space for a responsible transit solution adjacent to Michigan Ave. I have to ask, though, where is the money the city is going to pay coming from? It has to come from somewhere. I would assume that it comes primarily from the money that the developers are paying for the land (with the addition of predicted increases in tax revenues)… right?
Does anyone know how much reinforcing and developing additional cells would cost? If we take away a third of the land planned for development, get rid of the most profitable buildings, decrease the planned sources of tax money, and increase the city’s costs by rebuilding additional cells, will the amount that the developer is willing to pay still make this project financially viable?
I am not unreasonably committed to the current plan… I just believe that it has a reasonable chance of being completed before my 18-month-old son moves away to go to college. I bought my home in this neighborhood over a decade ago partly because of the promise of an accessible McMillan. Please, show me how we can make a plan that decreases building and increases unique public space happen in the near future. I don’t just need guesses based on fuzzy numbers and the idea that, surly SOMEONE will want to develop the site according to the plans. Give me a firm commitment from a developer who has the resources and credibility to complete the project in the near future, and I will hop right on board.
The cells are mostly stable except where the Tibur Creek flows thru at the SW corner. This according to the structural study done by VMP. So this isn't as big an issue as VMP wants it to be.
DeleteI don't think we need more park personally. I think that 8 acres is plenty and it's the size of Meridian Hill and any other city park outside of Rock Creek or the National Mall.
What we need is better planned space. The key changes are: 1) to move the road on the S service court to the north of the filtration towers to get them out of the traffic median and provide a pedestrian walkway contiguous with the park and add space for markets, outdoor art, and a cafe anchored in the existing pump house. 2) move the amphitheater to the interior of the development away from N. Capitol where people can actually hear and where a small band shell can be erected; 3) Increase the size of the community center or at minimum the pool to a 50meter pool which can accommodate the large population that will seek to use this center and add an indoor recreation space; 4) re-adapt one or more of the underground cells into a Paddington Reservoir type of space; 5) add a playground for kids, reinsert the spray park and put benches along the Olmsted walk.
I would say there are also some important cosmetic changes too...addition of certain water features around the community center. I would love urban gardens in the underground cells and what not too. But if the above key changes are made alot could be added in the future.
Thank you for your reply, Todd.
Delete-I would agree that moving the south road would be an improvement. It would be even better if roads that entered from the East and West did not connect with each other to discourage through traffic, and if all access to non-residential areas were from the West to mitigate traffic on First St.
- Maybe I don't understand the perspective in the drawings, but it looks like the amphitheater is adjacent to the community center, with the performance space near its front. It looks like it is a quarter of the width of the site away from North Capitol, and separated from the street by two rows of trees. I don't see why this is a problem.
- Lets say we extended the community center, and added an olympic lap pool to the cell that is currently being preserved. Where else would we preserve a cell? Where would you place the forrest of columns that the HPB nixed?
- When was the spray park removed? Isn't it in the area east of the community center?
Of course, all of these issues are appropriate for discussion at the community benefits meetings, and may be achievable.
Alex,
DeleteI completely agree with making the S. Service court a cul de sac and not a through road.
There are two problems with the amphitheater....ambient noise levels from N. Capitol combined with the comings and goings of the entrance to the entire development will compel and performances to employ amplification and will create distractions, particularly with no acoustic band shell to help project sound out. However, there really is no room on the current staging area (which is pushed right up against the pond). So it's not as functional as might be wished.
The Amphitheatre could be integrated into the Paddington Reservoir/ Forrest of columns concept that i believe should be moved to the cell behind the current community center and in front of the old pump house (which, once they move the road will now be contiguous and on the park). The cell could open up onto the S. service court (be entered from there) and the interior of the cell could host urban gardens, water features, even community vegetable gardens .....and at the entrance a cafe that can be anchored in the pump house.
The adjacent filtration towers can be integrated into the cafe space and re-adapted as hanging gardens or water features....combined with storage for the outdoor cafe (tables/chairs). Having a cafe at this spot could allow parents to sit and talk while surveying children playing in the spray park which was at this point on the s. service court, but which disappeared in the last version, i guess when they put the filteration towers and pump house in the traffic median.
Some have said that HPRB doesn't want any of the space south of the service court to be opened up. Others have noted that this is the cell that will be used for rain water storage. I think that these decisions need to be revisited.
If VMP is loathe to increase the actual size of the community center...then they need to figure out an indoor/outdoor pool concept that will allow the center to be opened up during the summer. Regardless they need an olympic pool in that center....this center will serve alot of NW/NE washington....not only the surrounding neighborhoods and 700 new housing units.
I would love to see a change in some of the materials on the park....not so much poured concrete and more organic materials like brick and even pebble walkways. The poured concrete just isn't very welcoming. I think that if these things are achieved, we have a great public space.
Sorry, one more thing....to really make this space both full of character and ambiance, VMP needs to figure out how to integrate a more "archeological" character to the site. The filtration towers just don't do it for me. As they stand, to me they are the least impressive components on the site (apologies for to those who disagree with me...they could be great as hanging gardens or fountains!). There has to be greater exposing of the old skeleton of the site and weaving those elements into the modern elements. This will create that sense of place....place unique to McMillan. Right now it just doesn't have that unique sense of place....which is to me the greatest opportunity lost in this current design.
DeleteOk...a little bit more info: So according to the DC water plan (http://www.dcwater.com/bloomingdale) they are now only using Cell 14 on N. Capitol as the single storage cell. They were going to also use Cell 15 on 1st but that has been nixed now. They have a shaft going in on Cell 27.... but Cell 26 is the cell that i propose should be opened up for the Paddington Reservoir concept...either in part or in whole (in whole it might be too big)....but at least the top half of Cell 26....the bottom half could have the roof retained, but the walls removed so you have ability to use the green roof on the lower portion as walkable park. To clarify even further, I wasn't super enthused about the forest of columns simply because the vaults themselves should be retained as much as possible (as they have been in Paddington) with the roof removed...so you have kind of a Tintern Abbey effect ...just leaving the column feet portions isn't as impressive.
DeleteTodd, I agree with 90% of your recommendations,... if they can be realistically accomplished within this iteration of attempts to develop the site for use by the community. Have these suggestions been part of your work with the MAG committee? I have seen lots of effort from FOM put into presenting plans that would completely derail the current process. It would be great if we could get some concept drawings and input of architectural feasibility regarding viable improvements that we could make to the current plan.
DeleteAs for the amphitheater, HOW would you incorporate it into the Paddington Reservoir feature? What would the acoustic and visual implications be of this placement?
Regarding the pool, I wouldn’t mind if they extended it, or built a separate lap pool in the underground area of the cell south of the community center (while preserving a green, walkable surface… maybe with translucent manhole covers). Of course, additional cell elements would have to be preserved elsewhere (as in the Paddington Reservoir concept).
Currently, I am confused about plans for the preserved cell. Are people going to be able to walk around in it? Is it just and empty space preserved for historic purposes? I think it would be better to present the (as you say) “archeological” flavor of the cells, while making them more people friendly. I will say that I am opposed to an outdoor pool that will serve as visually unpleasant dead space for most of the year.
I hadn’t heard about the spray park disappearing. I think that this is a very important feature. Bringing it back as part of an exposed cell - columned/arched area west of the community center would be great. However, I also I think that it is important to save a copse of trees somewhere on the site, as this sort of shaded, wooded area is sorely lacking in our city, and it would provide visual variety to the park. Placing it west of the columns would create an interesting vertical contrast, and would leave a long contiguous “lawn” south of the community center, stretching across half the site.
Yes, we are putting forward most of these recommendations in the MAG park committee. Although the MAG has had a reputation as a dysfunctional group in the past, there is a new crop of folks who have joined including Mat Bader, Chris Leptak, Paul Cerruti and others who are a level headed bunch of folks, very pragmatic and really want to broker a compromise.
DeleteConcept renderings would be fantastic. I've not been able to convince any architects to do them for free. Mariam Gusevich and Collage City did some and they probably aren't game for any others.
The S. Service court is at grade and the park plinth level is above grade....this would allow for a stepped approach for the Amphitheater just like at the entrance (opening towards the north). Or it could be fully within the cell (depending on how much of the cell they want to open up..it is huge). I would suggest that integrating a cafe space, amphitheater space directly in front of the pump house (which would now be part of the park) would be the best placement because it allows parents to use the cafe while keeping an eye on their kids in the spray park (which is near to this are).
The current plan for the "preserved cell" is to be able to gaze into it from the underground community center... i think Cell 28 is the one cited. But there are no plans to open it up to the public. It is more of a museum exhibit.
The pool could be extended into that cell, but i think that would require more extensive renovations and reinforcement esp. since that cell and the 28 next door are the most damaged on the entire site.
The outdoor pool could be controversial. But imagine a pool that extends from inside to the outside, under the glass front doors that open up during the summer making the entire pool one swim able body of water. In the winter the glass doors close and you have blue bottom pool inside and a black bottom pool outside that looks ....and outside does double duty as a water feature....a black bottom (natural swimming pool) So it might not actually look like your typical pool on the outside.
But I agree that extending the pool into the cell or just making the entire center wider could be the best option.
Well, the spray park is not on the latest renderings....alot of stuff appears and disappears on them without ever being mentioned again. I would advocate for the stand of trees to shade a play space for kids towards the north end of Cell 25, overlooking the reservoir. I agree that trees are necessary, particularly in the summertime.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI will respond to you more at length offline but I wanted to give a quick primer before then.
Part of the issue here is that studies were not recently performed to look into the cost associated with preserving the cells. Instead, the only information that is available comes from the 2000 report which looked at the structural integrity of the cells. Essentially that report says that the cost for demolition of a 'stable' cell (of which I believe there are 9 acres) is approximately $1 million less than preservation of that cell.
As to the financing for this project, the budget currently projects $51 or $53 million for this project (need to revisit the comprehensive plan) although I've heard up to $80 million. In addition, there are costs associated with schools for children that will be raised on the site, etc. etc. The VMP, LLC fiscal impact analysis shows a 30-year net return for the District of $873 million for this project. That is predominantly through property and income tax generation (make up 74% of the revenue generation).
So at a very simple level, let's say that we cut out the medical office. According to that analysis it would result in a decrease of around $300 million in real property tax revenue and around $230 million in income tax revenue. The flip side would be determining the revenue generation for the proposed underground development along with the reduction in other service costs associated with prepping the site for a medical office along with other built in city costs for assisting in maintaining that site.
That is a long way of saying that I could provide more hard and fast numbers if I had more access to the spreadsheet that initially generated these figures. It's also a way of saying no, I do not have financial commitments from another developer or any assurances that something productive would happen with this site were the current plan to be altered and the developer pull out of the project. I understand and respect your position and believe you and I simply disagree. I personally believe that the District chooses to not commit to a less dense project and that is not because it isn't economically feasible.
You and I have discussed at a high level some more basic changes to the plan that would at least allow the project to move forward while ensuring some basic concerns are addressed. I hope that at the very least some of those basic concerns (e.g. traffic mitigation and traffic pattern concerns) can be addressed.
I always I appreciate your input and hope others do as well.
Mat
Thank you Mat, for your thoughtful reply, and for your herculean efforts on this project.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex, if you'd like to join me and Mat and others on the MAG park committee you're more than welcome. email me at culturebank AT hotmail.com if you're interested
ReplyDelete