Bro. Jeff,
I like your following statement below if we can use this to understand the FOM (Friends of McMillan) Perspective .....
"I hope people will advocate for low impact development techniques which can save us money, create healthier environments and create places that balance the need for housing, jobs and public places".
Here is a question -- Since we have no green space or park space that the community could use in the surrounding
areas, wouldn't it be more wise to utilize this Green Space as a Low Density development that facilitates some ground floor retail for our communities and maybe some residential/office space with a large part focused on a open space community environment.
Wouldn't that fit your statement better?
Now, as for your comment below from your email with Mr. Peloquin,
"It's too bad that there aren't groups to put as much energy, time and button-holing on education and economic development as "FOM" puts on fighting development",
I don't understand it. I think that we do put energy and time in. The problem is that when we have folks in Power positions who think that only they know best and that thought process is backed by developer $$$$ / furthered by so many "Newcomers" (both Black and White), it is difficult to be successful in challenging their crap.
The Question that you and the rest should be asking everyone is that if folks are putting up resistance and it is a lot of folks (not a few), maybe we have an idea of what we want -- not what they want for us, not what developers want us to have so that they could profit, not what "newcomers want" but is "branding" our communities to be their communities -- not our (ours and theirs).
The interesting thing is that just like the 901 Monroe project, the ones who support development should understand that they/we don't lose their/our store front needs with less density -- we all still get our ground floor retail. So, lets be real -- both sides of the community can be pleased but the developer has always seemed place fear of "no development" (meaning no ground floor retail) if the support for MASSIVE is not given. We need not be hoodwinked or be used to hoodwink.
Rob Ramson
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM, jeffndc <jeffndc@yahoo.com> wrote:
All,There is no "one" correct answer to the issue of stormwater runoff, however, in my "quiz" I was trying to show that the current solution is expensive and inadequate. Bradley Thomas did his homework well and, although he used a different methodology than I used, we both come to that conclusion. Bradley used a one square mile template which is not large enough for our problem--I suggest 2.5 square miles looking at the very minimum drainage area of the old Tiber creek basin which is smack under Bloomingdale. Using the following formula 27,150 gallons per acre x 1,700 acres we get 43,444,000 gallons for a very modest storm. So stroing 6 million gallons is about 7%. As most Blomingdale residents know, the severity and intensity of storms has increased, therefore this calculation shows that even a modest amount of rain will be minimally impacted by the storage tank idea.So, what to do: a combination of rain catching techniques on everyone's properties e.g. rain barrels which can be obtained at home depot and other stores, rain gardens on individual lots to hold more water, green infrastructure by the DC government--along streets, along sidewalks, and as Jerry points out, both a tree planting and tree conservation strategy. On this site, the EYA proposal actually uses green roofs, raingardens, impondments and other green infrastructure techniques that will slow down, hold and slowly release the rainwater. Using all these techniques not only will help solve the stormwater problem but will make our city greener and more livable for all residents at the same time. I am not in favor of the mega concrete conduits being proposed to take the rainwater directly to waste water processing--it's out of date thinking, not environmentally or fiscally sound judgement. The city can learn from other cities that are ahead of us in using these more environmentally sound and less costly methods.There are plenty of design experts in this city who know this in greater detail than I can go into in this email, but here's one link to look at :I hope people will advocate for low impact development techniques which can save us money, create healthier environments and create places that balance the need for housing, jobs and public places.Jeff
From: Bradley A. Thomas <b-ashton-thomas@verizon.net>
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [ward5] McMillan lexicon: FOM = Friends of McMillan
Good Evening Jeff:
I'm not an FOM member but your quiz intrigued me to the point that I had to put on my old engineering hat. It's been a long time since I undertook one of these mathematical brain teasers but here goes:
There are 5,280 feet in a mile. A square mile, therefore, is 5,280 ft. x 5,280 ft. which equals 27,878,400 square feet. If that surface area is covered to a depth of one inch (or 1/12 foot), we divide that square foot total by 12 and 27,878,400 / 12 = 2,323,200. Thus, the volume of the water would be 2,323,200 cubic feet. Based on its density, one cubic foot of water equals 7.48 gallons. The total number of gallons it would take to cover one square mile to a depth of one inch is 2,323,200 x 7.48 which equals 17,377,536 gallons.
Again, I'm not an FOM member and I'm not endorsing or rejecting the mayor's storage tank plan but it would seem to me that being able to store a little more than a third of that water, while obviously not the ultimate solution, should have some effect on reducing storm water flooding.
Regarding the bonus question, I don't have a clue as to where to start so I'll leave that to others who are far more educated in that respect than I.
Thanks for the exercise professor.
Bradley A. ThomasOn 06/13/13, jeffndc<jeffndc@yahoo.com> wrote:KPW great a response! I was waiting for people to at least try to figure it out and maybe they would learn something about green infrastructure, that's a hint. I will post the answer tomorrow. Rain runoff can be calculated with a little arithmetic and a few websites.Thanks!Jeff
From: KPW of the Nation's Capital <WKPW3@aol.com>
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ward5] McMillan lexicon: FOM = Friends of McMillan
When you posted your quiz before I didn't know the answer and don't recall you posting the answer.
-----Original Message-----
From: jeffndc <jeffndc@yahoo.com>
To: ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: [ward5] McMillan lexicon: FOM = Friends of McMillan
Jerry my friend,FOM has never offered a single clue about what they would accept on the site except for the goofy, non-implementable 1990's pastiche of travel photos by a local "Professor". So I would love to see the density and type of development that FOM would propose, please. So I don't buy their persistent whining over open space that hasn't been used and won't be if we don't create an integrated place on the site. Fenced of forever wild maybe that's what FOM wants? By the way where are the Ward 5 residents demanding to use Fort Bunker Hill "Park"? that sure gets a lot of use.I ran this quiz a little while back and as usual, when i post anything of substance i get no replies...just crickets. Let's try the quiz again and see if any FOM members want to try their hand.JeffHere' a math question for those of you who might think that storing 6 million gallons of water on the McMillan site (according to Mr. Gray's press release below) sounds like it will actually do something significant regarding storm water: How many gallons of water are in 1 inch of rain on 1 square mile? Bonus question: How any square miles are drained across the Tiber creek basin that people built Bloomingdale (and other neighborhoods) on top of? Here's a nice historical map to help answer the bonus question.
After you do the math, ask yourself what and where will catch, hold, and slowly drain the rest of the water? Hint: 1950's engineering is not the answer.Jeff
From: Jerome J. Peloquin <jeromepeloquin@fastmail.fm>
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ward5] McMillan lexicon: FOM = Friends of McMillan
Thanks ... I think the terms "smart development," "forms based code," and indeed anything that does not imply maximum density development (MDD) lmfao ... is considered anti development. In fact the mere term Development (with a big D) has come to mean exploitation of the urban landscape... there has to be a middle road ... cause this ain't workin'Jerry----- Original message -----Subject: [ward5] McMillan lexicon: FOM = Friends of McMillanDate: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT)Jerry:FOM = Friends of McMillan, a group that does not support the current Vision McMillan Partners (VMP) development plan for the McMillan Sand Filtration site.
From: Jerome J. Peloquin <jeromepeloquin@fastmail.fm>
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ward5] assorted McMillan items
... and who is FOM?Jerry----- Original message -----From: jeffndc <jeffndc@yahoo.com>Subject: Re: [ward5] assorted McMillan itemsDate: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT)It's too bad that there aren't groups to put as much energy, time and button-holing on education and economic development as "FOM" puts on fighting development.Jeff
From: "scott@scott-roberts.net" <scott@scott-roberts.net>
To: "ward5@yahoogroups.com" <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: [ward5] assorted McMillan items
KPW: Thanks for posting today`s Greater Greater Washington blog post on the development plans for McMillan.Here are some other McMillan-related items for the Ward 5 list.a] McMillan Advisory Group (MAG) Meeting – Tonight, Thursday, 06/13/2013From: Dianne Barnes <dianne_brns @ yahoo.com>Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:42 PMSubject: Re: Reminder of Upcoming MAG Meeting - June 13thMAG MeetingAll Nations Baptist Church2001 North Capitol St, NEThursday, June 13, 20137PM – 8:30PMMAG Agenda of Discussion- Review of the latest VMP Presentation - Buildings` Designs and Heights- BylawsRespectfully,Dianne Barnes5E Chairperson (5E09)McMillan Advisory Group Memberb] ``Friends of McMillan Park release fact sheet exposing VMP misinformation`` -- a parodyThis parody message consists of two .jpeg images, which you can see posted over at the Bloomingdale Neighborhood blog: http://bloomingdaleneighborhood.blogspot.com/2013/06/friends-of-mcmillan-park-friends-of.htmlc] Vision McMillan Partners: ``Support Envision McMillan``From: Vision McMillan Partners <info @ envisionmcmillan.com >Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:21 PMSubject: Support Envision McMillanDear Friend of McMillan,I want to thank Cheryl Cort and the Coalition for Smarter Growth for their recent expression of support for Vision McMillan Partners` plan and the outreach to their constituents that has generated many letters of support this past week. I have clipped bits from her message below in order to connect you to her convenient tool for sending a letter to D.C. expressing support for the redevelopment of McMillan.As you probably know, some who are opposing the transformation of this long off-limits city-owned parcel have mischaracterized the plans and are urging the D.C. government to halt progress despite the many proposed public benefits.We need you to step up and show that many fair-minded D.C. residents believe moving McMillan forward in a responsible way is the right thing to do.Please send an email to D.C. officials expressing your support for a new McMillan right now! >>We`ll keep you posted on the progress but in the meantime, please email city officials to let them know you support McMillan!Thank you so much for your patience and participation in this process.Anne L. CorbettProject DirectorVISION MCMILLAN PARTNERSEYA | JAIR LYNCH Development Partners | Trammell Crow CompanyCopyright © 2013 Vision McMillan Partners, All rights reserved.You are receiving this email from us because you either signed up on our website or provided your contact information at a meeting with the Vision McMillan team.Our mailing address is:Vision McMillan Partners1508 U Street NWWashington, DC 20009d] Greater Greater Washington 06/13/2013 post in support of the Vision McMillan plan for McMillanKPW has already posted this GGW blog post, so I won't copy in again here. But I * have * copied the 40+ comments posted to date. Lots of interest in the site!Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save itby Malcolm Kenton • June 13, 2013 10:12 amComments
The Friends of McMillan Park put out a fact sheet today exposing the misinformation being peddled by VMP, and you can read it here.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.by friendsofmcmillan on Jun 13, 2013 10:56 am • link • reportHey FOM:Your shrill written and verbal carpet bombing on this issue is getting old.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.Good piece, and I have sent my correspondence urging the council to surplus McMillan.@Friends of Mcmillan - your website is pretty out there. "Obliterating the character"? Its a fenced off crummy looking lot right now. Your point about the city paying 50 million for a NOMA park is silly - VMP's plan includes lots of green space. And "build the affordable housing elsewhere" - stay classy.Thank you for laying out the issues so well, Malcolm. I've emailed my support of the plan to DMPED.I could not care less about whether the majority or a minority of the "historic structures" are preserved or not.That said, this plan is something to be skeptical of. The pictures of active pedestrian foot traffic are simply not going to happen. They're creating a large city deadzone with a sterile office park. This is recreating the worst parts of K Street and I Street in a place surrounded by residential neighborhoods.Sure, better than nothing, but...See photos of Thursday's surplus meeting (in which three people, including Mr. Kenton, stood in opposition to everyone else) here: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.by friendsofmcmillan on Jun 13, 2013 11:14 am • link • reportFOM: What character? It's a field that's been fenced off for 80 years. When was the last time you or your family had a quiet picnic in the park?Never?Thought so.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.Actually, if you look at your twitter page you can see that CSG invited you to email or call them for a full explanation and you declined to do 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.As someone who lives less than a block from McMillan, here are my thoughts, which, I suspect like most of my neighbors don't fit as neatly into either the VMP or FOM camp:1. I haven't heard a good reason from VMP why the medical office buildings make sense on top of Mcmillan rather than building on the parking lots in the Hospital Center. If there's sufficient demand for office space in the area, then the air rights over those parking lots (which could be dug deeper and converted to a garage to yield even more parking!) should be sufficiently valuable to encourage a sale to and subsequent development by VMP.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?Oof, the mcmillanpark.com plan is way worse than the VMP one. You get a larger park sure but awful urban design in the developed portions.Meanwhile 4 vs. 8 blocks of development isn't going to have a huge impact on traffic, especially when the extra blocks are mostly townhouses.So much of the "McMillan Park" complaints collapse upon the least bit of scrutiny. What it amounts to is a demand that we DC taxpayers lavish a fortune on their backyards.Just stabilizing the site would apparently cost some $50M, and one neighbor demanded that "McMillan could be Washington's Millennium Park or High Line" -- parks which cost $250M and $475M, respectively. Never mind that those parks, as well as new parks and plazas at the Yards, the Wharf, CityCenterDC, NoMa, Hill East, Hine School, etc., were all paid for by private development. (By contrast, rebuilding all of DC's neighborhood libraries, in every ward, cost $180M.)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.Many, many of those in opposition to the VMP plan are not demanding that whole thing be turned into a park, but rather that the plan on the table be modified to make more of the development a park. There are many people who oppose the VMP plan as it stands but who support some level of development on the site. We just deserve better than what's been served up thus far and VMP is penned in by the DC govt because they've been given certain design parameters (i.e. govt should receive X amount of money in tax revenue annually). We want to shift the dialog. What's being offered is a false dichotomy - develop it only as the VMP plan presents or be left with a fenced-off field for all eternity.I'm a resident with a house overlooking the site. I think the layout has moved in the right direction with the most recent updates, but the architecture is a disappointment. There's been no effort to make the buildings fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods, and overall it might as well be K Street or Tysons Corner. Even if the site is going to VMP without a competitive bid, VMP should open up the design to a competitive bid among architecture firms so we at least get some choice as to what this place looks and feels like. The developers have enough floor space in an area where condos are going for $750k to afford to pay a decent architect for this one. As another commenter noted, there is not a good explanation of why so much office space needs to be on this space when the hospital has available land of its own.The traffic is a major concern and a "bus turnaround" is not going to help. 1st street already is a parking lot with people trying to get to VA on 395 via NY Ave, and heaven help you if you are stupid enough to try to turn right off of N. Cap.The neighborhood infrastructure was built for this to be a park and nothing in the VMP plan changes that.It seems like a thoughtful plan with lots of greenspace and amenities and the massing in the right place relative to the adjacent SFH's.But the fact sheet is a hoot - they reference an alternative that appears to be just as dense with a similar amount of green space.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?If FOM has a better plan to redevelop McMillan, they should put in an alternative bid for the land - one that will convince the Council to act in their favor instead of VMP's. If FOM doesn't have a better plan or can't piece together a viable alternative, it should either get out of the way or use the long and extensive permitting process to influence the scope and/or outcomes of the project.Seems to me that any development here should be linked to moving the streetcar at a higher priority. The Calvert-Michigan line is listed as phase 3 (the final phase) of the proposed system plan. That line should be running in time for any development here to open.Two transportation thoughts:
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.It is so sad that the DC Sierra Club has let itself be co-opted by this single issue NIMBY organization. Hard to believe it is the same organization that once published "Restore the Core" and lobbied for investment in the District as at least part of the remedy to endless sprawl. BTW, the guy spearheading FOM and directing the Club's position on this issue was elected to the local Sierra Club leadership at about the same time his own neighbors rejected him for an ANC seat. Of course, I think local Sierra Club elections draw all of about 40 voters, so they are being a bit disingenuous when they claim to speak for all 10,000 or so DC Sierra Club members. They certainly do not speak for me on this issue. Seriously considering letting my membership lapse, no matter what good they might do at the national level.I'm really disappointed with the level of analysis presented in this post. The claim that "it would be prohibitively expensive to make McMillan a park" is offered with no support. If the claim were true, then there really would be nothing to debate this month: by assumption, McMillan can't be used as a park and everyone is better off if the city gets tax revenue versus the status quo (no tax revenue). Surplus is a foregone conclusion.We can debate the competing merits of the VMP plan versus other development plans with more or less open space and different community amenities, but those discussions aren't really ripe until the city first decides to surplus the land. And that's the decision on the table now.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.@11luke: Scrap the apartments- there's enough rental buildingsprouting up in NOMA and Brookland.There isn't enough rental housing anywhere in the city. There are too many condo conversions and not nearly enough rental stock to supply the young and not-especially-well-paid with decent places to live. DC is severely lacking in apartments, and while this in no way alleviates that pressure, it's at least something.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.@11luke: Interesting point about the medical office market. Without knowing any details about MedStar/VA's plans, though, I would say that either (a) like other institutions [e.g., Howard University] not in the real estate development business and don't see their land as an asset, (b) have other plans for their parking lots, or (c) don't have zoning permission to build any more [MedStar's land is only zoned for 0.9 FAR]. One also can't assume that MedStar or VA would occupy the office buildings, and those new tenants can't easily set up shop across the street.@rg: The only-slightly-more-difficult alternative would be to take back the SC DC Group.Here's an idea - why not put shops and restaurants and galleries and art spaces and a food court in the underground cells?
Call it "McMillan Down Under".I agree with Gavin and others calling for mass transit to be up and running before this development opens up. The riders will already be there -- have you seen the square footage coming on line between there and the Brookland station? Then the hospitals can reallocate their multi-layer, lit-up-all-night-long parking tiers.And does the VMP plan include a pedestrian passage UNDER Michigan Avenue?@metroderpHere's where I'm coming from about the lack of condos:
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/new_condo_supply_in_dc_area_hits_record_low_as_sales_pace_accelerates/6485And 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.your option is rowhouse or condoWell one thing to do is to build apartments so that people with roommates who may rent a townhouse have the option of an apartment as well.If they area needs a park, they should cap the reservoir next door and tear down the fence to make that a real park.@ Lisa, I don't think the current VMP plan makes any provision for pedestrians getting across Michigan Ave.People shouldn't even be paying attention to the design of the buildings at this point.At this stage in the planning, the designers always overdo it in regards to the buildings. Modern, sleek, unique. When was the last time a building like that was actually built in DC?I have had many a near-death experience on Michigan Avenue on bike and on foot. A tunnel right to Children's Hosp, and to a bus/streetcar stop opposite might be good; I defer to transit people who know more.During the Brookland Small Area Planning Process I kept arguing for linkage between streetcar and development at McMillan and AFRH. That didn't get in the plan.I also argued for transit impact fees on those developments, something DC doesn't necessarily really do, outside of certain aspects of PUDs.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.by Richard Layman on Jun 13, 2013 12:37 pm • link • reportI doubt the so-called Smarter Growth crowd will be happy as long as a tree or blade of grass is left standing in DC.Odd this article so soon after the one on how appalling the 1800's plan to build over Rock Creek Park was.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.David C -- if the Reservoir is used to store post-treated water, new EPA regulations do in fact require it to be capped.by Richard Layman on Jun 13, 2013 12:39 pm • link • reportI doubt the so-called Smarter Growth crowd will be happy as long as a tree or blade of grass is left standing in DC.Pay no mind to the VMP plan which includes park space. Or the vigourous discussion in the RCP story about how to make the parkway less harmful to the park. Or how the Smart Code discusses both city parks and greenbelts as a tool in Smart Growth.I'll echo rg's disappointment with the DC Sierra Club's involvement on this one. Fifteen years ago, their "Restore The Core" report demonstrated an understanding that environmentalism in an urban context is much more subtle than the naive green=good, development=bad perspective. Parks in particular are a very complicated issue, and as I suspect Richard Layman would point out, the lack of a comprehensive DC park plan does not help matters.In an urban setting, parks are not about wildlife; even if left to grow 'wild' (such as Bunker Hill park in Brookland), at best they'd be ecologically useless edge habitat inhabited primarily by species that need no help. In an urban setting, park are about people, for a myriad of uses.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.Tom,This isn't McMillan Park. It's an old filtration plant next to McMillan Park. See this map from 1909.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.I'm a bit surprised to see the 'pass' GGW has given to the transportation issues of this site and plan.Metro is in the process of studying the 80 and H-bus lines, which would travel right to the east and north of any potential development. As of last week the Metrobus teams were not talking to anyone from the development team.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
StrongholdThey're planning for 800 residences, 3 13-story medical offices and a large grocery store + many little stores (you know, the requisite Chipotles and such).While thousands may be a tad hyperbolic (though I think it's probably more than fair), I'll go with "lots and lots of new cars." Regardless, it still flies in the face of the Mayor's comments and vision for the future of this city.by Shipsa01 on Jun 13, 2013 1:19 pm
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (11) To Post a message, send it to: ward5@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ward5-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
.
__,_._,___
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WardFive" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment