Posts by Dan Malouff

Constitution Gardens

Many Washingtonians feel that Constitution Gardens is the best part of the Mall already. Certainly it's the most unique, with its informal pond and romantic pathways. The winning design, by Rogers Marvel Architects + Peter Walker and Partners, will build on the gardens' strengths to make it even better.

Design by Rogers Marvel Architects + Peter Walker and Partners.

The designers propose to introduce a new pavilion at the east end of the existing pond. This pavilion would become the centerpiece of activity in the garden. It would contain a restaurant and a dock for model boating. In the winter, the eastern section of the pond would be used for ice skating.

These additional active uses are good additions, although one wonders if another ice skating rink can survive so close to the existing rink at the Sculpture Garden.

One negative aspect of this plan is that it actively turns its back on the street. It proposes to raise new hills along Constitution Avenue in order to "provide separation" between the park and downtown. This is entirely the wrong approach, and will contribute even more to the segregation of the city's cultural amenities from the city's residents.

Washington Monument grounds

In contrast to Constitution Gardens, the Washington Monument grounds are probably the worst section of the Mall. The giant grass lawns are not destinations to anyone but a few softball players. Rather, they are long, empty voids that tired visitors must traverse.

The poor condition of the grounds is even more unfortunate because they are the geographic center of the monumental core. In theory this should be the most heavily-built and formal area of the Mall, but in reality it is the least.

The winning entry for this section, by OLIN + Weiss/Manfredi, is disappointing in its scope. Rather than address the fundamental deficiencies with the grounds as a whole, the design focuses closely on the southeast corner and largely ignores the rest.

Design by OLIN + Weiss/Manfredi.

To the designers' credit, what they have proposed for that section is excellent. They would replace the afterthought that is the existing Sylvan Theater with a wonderful new grass amphitheater. It would blend seamlessly with the surrounding landscape, would face and help to frame the Washington Monument, and would vastly improve the theater experience in every way.

They also propose a cafe and bookstore, to be built into the side of a small hill so that they appear as one with the rolling landscape. These are good additions that will improve the edge condition between park and city, and the proposed architecture is both appropriate and totally unique.

Union Square

Better known as the Capitol Reflecting Pool, Union Square suffers from many of the same problems as the Washington Monument grounds. It's visually impressive, but usually empty. There's not much reason for people to go except to pass through, and its monumental components are so oversized that they are a barrier to walking.

The winning design, by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol + Davis Brody Bond, does much to improve the situation.

Design by Gustafson Guthrie Nichol + Davis Brody Bond.

The designers propose reducing the size of the reflecting pool and carrying additional pathways through the site, creating new connections with the Smithsonian area to the west.

They also propose to narrow Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues, and to convert them from parking lots to more pedestrian-friendly streets.

Unfortunately, the garden areas north of Pennsylvania Avenue and south of Maryland Avenue are afterthoughts in this proposal. It would have been nice to see a new building on the north end of the site, mirroring the location of the US Botanical Garden. That area is a nether-zone between the Mall and Senate Park, and would be more valuable as the site for a future museum.

Next steps

The Trust for the National Mall does actually intend to build these designs. Fundraising will begin soon, and the first ribbon-cutting could take place as early as 2016.

That's good news.

Overall, these ideas would improve the National Mall. It would still be an imperfect space, poorly connected to the living city around it. But it would, for the most part, be better than it is today.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Fort Totten: Almost as good as the Gonzaga design, this store is inferior only because it's in a much more isolated location, and because the building materials appear to be somewhat cheaper. But still, the design is unquestionably strong.

Georgia Avenue: Although this design lacks the mixed-use amenities of the previous two, it's still primarily urban, with greater emphasis on pedestrian access than vehicular. It greets the street and parking is provided underground. It's a reasonable choice for a neighborhood that has not seen much investment in recent years.

Skyland Town Center: Resembling something one might expect to see in Gaithersburg, this location is a bit like a shopping mall; it's internally walkable, but poorly connected to any surrounding neighborhoods.

Capitol Gateway: The farthest out proposal from downtown is clearly primarily suburban. It's a strip mall. But it does take a few tentative steps towards walkability, with both street-facing and parking lot-facing entrances.

New York Avenue: The intersection of New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road is probably DC's most car-oriented corner. And so it was predictable that Walmart would choose it for a store, and propose a totally suburban design.

The store faces away from the biggest street and fronts onto a big open-air parking lot. The only indication that this location is in a city instead of an exurb is that the Walmart will be stacked on top of another big box store (probably a Home Depot).

Is DC a testing ground?

Each of the 6 stores has such unique characteristics that one wonders if Walmart is using DC as an experiment to see which types of layouts work in the urban environment. By comparing the sales at the more urban stores to the more suburban ones, Walmart will gain many valuable insights.

Inevitably, Walmart will probably want to establish stores in other central cities around the country. The DC example will very likely influence the design of those future stores.

All images in this post are from Walmart.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

The comments generally fell into 2 categories: questions about the definitions, and malls that should be added to the map.

Definitions

For the purposes of this map, an "enclosed mall" is defined as a shopping center in which there is a row of small retail shops that are primarily accessed by pedestrians via an interior walkway. The two key components are small shops and an interior walkway.

Buildings with interior spaces that consist primarily of large format retailers (such as the Pentagon Centre or DCUSA) are not malls for this purpose. Neither are spaces that are primarily food courts. Basically, to qualify as a mall for this map, a shopping center should have a space that looks generally like this.

Additions and subtractions

This second draft includes the following malls that were left out of the first: La Promenade (DC), Waterside (DC), Free State (Bowie), Livingston (Ft Washington), Chevy Chase Pavilion (DC), National Place (DC), Beacon Mall (Mount Vernon), 2000 Pennsylvania Ave (DC), New Carrollton Mall (New Carrollton), Centre at Forestville (Forestville), Rolling Valley Mall (Burke).

The only mall I subtracted from the original map was Virginia Square, which had a department store but apparently never an enclosed row of smaller shops.

I also removed references to "thriving" and "surviving" from the table in the legend, since that was subjective and unclear.

Notable omissions

Shopping centers that could be considered malls but that don't meet the definition I used for this map include DCUSA, Old Post Office Pavilion, Gallery Place, Pentagon Centre, and the terminals at National and Dulles airports. The airports might technically meet the definition, but they're obviously a different animal.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

The 31 malls on the map range from small local ones like Fair City in Fairfax, to gargantuan super-regional ones like Tysons Corner. The only requirement to be on the map is that malls contain a common interior hallway lined with several shops.

Some, like Pentagon City, are chugging along as healthily as ever. Others, like Seven Corners Center, have been gone for years. Overall, more than 40% of the dots are red.

The reasons malls have closed vary as much as the malls themselves. Some closed because they were housed in cheap buildings that simply reached the end of their intended lifespans, while others couldn't compete with the mixed-use town center developments that have become common in recent years.

Geography seems to be unimportant in whether a mall lives or dies. Red dots permeate all corners of the map, regardless of the wealth of the jurisdiction.

One thing that does seem to make a difference is size. Larger malls that draw from a wider area generally seem more likely to thrive than smaller ones. As the years go by and even more green dots turn to red, it's likely the last hold outs will be the biggest and most famous.

Is this map comprehensive? Did I miss any malls? Let me know in the comments.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

It's an interesting idea, and definitely worth exploring, but it's also going to be difficult to pull off successfully. If the city simply plops a couple of rock climbing walls on the old asphalt, the new park will be a failure.

The problem is that there is no built-in user base. The bridge is difficult to access from nearby neighborhoods, so it won't likely get many casual walk-through users. Most of the nearby neighborhoods also aren't very dense.

Instead, the park would rely on people who specifically go there as a destination. That means it will have to offer specific reasons for people to visit. If there aren't enough reasons, the park will remain mostly empty. The bridge is also long, meaning there's a lot of space to fill.

So the park will need an anchor, or several anchors. And it will need transportation facilities to accommodate users, since there won't be enough walkers to populate it fully.

If the District wants to fill the long span of 11th Street Bridge with enough people to give it a lively and safe feeling, it will need to do more:

Program it heavily. The more stuff there is in the park, the more reason people will have to visit. So fill the thing up with activities. Attach a boat house, put in a mini golf course, whatever. Give people a reason to travel across the city and come to this place.

Make it mixed use. Putting large office or residential buildings on the bridge is probably not realistic, but there is no reason why it shouldn't include some small shops and food stands. And for goodness sake, keep them open. That perpetually closed pavilion at Pershing Park isn't doing anyone any favors.

Be inclusive. Provide space for food trucks, sidewalk vendors, street artists, performers, anybody. Let them in, and let them sell. This is actually one advantage this park has over nearby space in Anacostia Park: The National Park Service controls that, and prohibits any vending, but a city bridge-turned-park wouldn't suffer under the same restrictions.

Don't cheap out on landscaping. Nobody wants to visit a concrete expanse. Obviously the range of plantings available on a hard surface with no soil is somewhat limited, but go to the expense and trouble of doing as much as you can.

Provide transportation. People will need a means of getting to this park. There must be parking for cars and bikes (on-street is fine), bike sharing, and the streetcar should actually stop in the center of the bridge.

With enough planning and strong management, this idea could be a winner. Without, it will fail, and will ultimately be abandoned.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

This intersection, of Wilson, Washington, and Clarendon Boulevards, is often referred to as "Clarendon Circle," because it used to be one. During the 20th Century the circle was removed and the intersection widened. Now Arlington wants to make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.

There are a lot of interesting things going on with this plan, but the most interesting is the bike queuing zone in the lower right corner of the intersection. The idea is that cyclists hoping to cross Washington Boulevard in order to move east along Clarendon Boulevard will have a dedicated and safe place to wait, separated from both cars and pedestrians.

The two-stage bike box is similar to regular bike boxes, except that it's located in a reserved corner of the intersection rather than between the crosswalk and stopping stripe.

A normal bike box behind the crosswalk on either southbound Washington Boulevard or eastbound Wilson Boulevard would be less versatile, because it would only benefit cyclists on that one street. The two-stage box helps people moving onto Clarendon Boulevard from both Wilson and Washington, which is why it's a clever innovation at this location.

There are a few two-stage bike boxes in Portland and New York, but they use a somewhat different design. Clarendon Circle will be the first implementation of this idea in the DC area, and will also be the first-anywhere use of this particular design, which hugs the curb in an inverted nub.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

K Street at Union Station

Somewhere near Union Station, the H Street streetcar will shift north 2 blocks before continuing west along K Street into downtown. The adopted plan calls for the shift to take place on New Jersey Avenue, but it could be done on 1st Street NE instead.

The 1st Street alignment would provide more direct service through the heart of the emerging NoMa office district, and to the huge Greyhound bus station at the corner of K and 1st. The downside is this alignment would remove direct access to the New Jersey Avenue Walmart, which is sure to become a major destination.

Poplar Point and downtown Anacostia

Poplar Point could one day be the location of a large new mixed-use development. Unfortunately the location is isolated by I-295, and difficult to access by foot or transit. Meanwhile, the MLK Avenue alignment through downtown Anacostia is narrow, and proving difficult to work with. Adding tracks to Poplar Point would add a major new attraction and remove stress from a likely choke point.

Southwest Waterfront

Like Poplar Point, the Southwest Waterfront is primed for major redevelopment. The planned streetcar alignment follows Maine Avenue, but shifting it one block over to Water Street would put it closer to the action, for basically no additional cost. There is so much pavement in this area that it may be a location where a dedicated transit lane is possible. If that is the case, DDOT should put the streetcar wherever they can get the lane.

Buzzard Point

Diverting the M Street SW/SE streetcar to Potomac Avenue would more directly serve Nationals Park and much of the associated nearby development. Unfortunately, doing so would add a lot of travel time for other riders, since it would turn what is currently planned to be a direct 3-block trip along M Street into a lengthy 10-block crescent. Additionally, M Street is one of the few locations where a dedicated transit lane may be possible, so diverting from it would forfeit that possibility.

14th and 15th Streets

Shifting the streetcar from 14th to 15th through downtown DC would be easier to construct from an engineering perspective, and would put the streetcar on a busy tourist street close to the White House. The study does not discuss the implications of running a streetcar on the same street as a cycle track, but if they can both be accommodated it would certainly be an impressive sight.

7th/9th couplet

The adopted streetcar plan calls for both both north and southbound streetcars to use 7th Street south of Gallery Place. Shifting the southbound trains to 9th Street would mirror existing bus service, reduce impacts on congested 7th Street, and permit use of the 9th Street transit lane.

Washington Hospital Center

DDOT's streetcar plan calls for half the streetcars on one line to take Irving Street and the other half to take Michigan Avenue. Eliminating this split around the hospital campus and instead routing the streetcar through the campus, or along its southern edge, would save tens of millions of dollars and have no serious negative effect on service to the hospital or any future development at the McMillan Sand Filtration site.

It would take away convenient service from the Armed Forces Retirement Home and development the home plans at the edge of its property, but that may not happen for some time and the size is still in question.

Columbia/Harvard couplet

The adopted plan calls for bi-directional streetcar travel along one-way Columbia Road. Adding tracks to Harvard Street and operating one-way couplets through Columbia Heights would be similar to the way existing bus service uses Irving and Columbia as couplets, and would improve operations. It would be worth exploring mirroring bus service exactly and using Irving instead of Harvard for eastbound tracks, but doing so would require more complicated engineering and may therefore be more difficult.

South Dakota Avenue and Fort Lincoln

Rerouting the eastern end of the Rhode Island Avenue streetcar to turn south on South Dakota Avenue and terminate at Fort Lincoln would bring service to potential redevelopment areas along South Dakota Avenue, as well as provide a convenient location for a maintenance facility. However, this would add significant new length and expense to the line, and would make it more difficult to ever extend rail service into Maryland.

Silver Spring

The Georgia Avenue line would end at Takoma Metro rather than Silver Spring in order to keep the entire line within the District of Columbia. However, Silver Spring is a tremendously more compelling destination, with very high density and one of the region's most important transit transfer stations. Rerouting to Silver Spring would almost certainly be worth the cost, if Maryland is willing to participate as a partner.

Wisconsin Avenue has repeatedly come up as a potentially strong streetcar corridor that was left out of the adopted plan. There is less opportunity along Wisconsin Avenue for substantial infill growth, which makes it a lower priority for streetcar service. However, if the system does expand significantly beyond its current scope, this would be a natural corridor.

Rosslyn

Curiously, the land use study does not consider the possibility of extending the Georgetown streetcar line across the Key Bridge into Rosslyn. Certainly such an extension would be compelling, for many of the same reasons as the Silver Spring extension. It could be that the cost or engineering challenges of extending rail to Rosslyn are prohibitive, but it seems odd to leave out any discussion of the possibility.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Under Metro's proposal, riders could choose from two differently-priced 28-day passes, good for trips up to $3.25 or unlimited. Any trip of the pass value or less would be free. If customers use a pass for a more expensive trip than the cap, they'll pay the difference.

Passes need to be on SmarTrip

Metro's pass proposal calls for using paper farecards, at least initially, for the monthly pass. But that will depress use of the passes, as it does with the two existing weekly passes.

The weekly rail fast pass and short trip pass are not popular, in part because paper farecards are inconvenient and relatively fragile. The short trip pass is especially inconvenient since it requires Metro customers to carry exact change for every ride that is more than $3.25. With a Smartrip card, this extra fare could be automatically deducted from stored value.

The risk of damaging the card combined with the need to carry a bunch of coins for more expensive trips tilts the field away from using passes. And the calculus is even worse for a pass that needs to last a full month rather than a week. If the new passes are paper-only, customers likely won't buy enough of them to make the new passes worthwhile.

Add a 3rd tier for the shortest trips

While a choose-your-own-value pass is ideal, Metro believes it's too technically complex to implement. But they could improve upon their proposal by adding a third tier for shorter trips.

The two existing passes are good for trips up to $3.25 and up to maximum fare. This offers a good deal for customers that regularly take medium and long-distance trips, but is not a very good deal for customers that live closer in and rarely take a trip that long.

The new pass should be good for trips costing up to $2.10. Any additional fare would automatically come out of the stored value in the customer's Smartrip account. Metro should encourage customers to buy higher-tier passes by adjusting their prices. The higher-tier passes should be slightly cheaper in comparison.

Price 28-day passes differently than weekly passes

Under the current proposal, the "monthly pass" would actually be a 4-week pass, and it would cost exactly 4-times the amount of the weekly pass.

Mathematically that may make sense, but it doesn't make sense from a customer service perspective. Considering the added risk of losing or damaging a farecard, or of not using it on vacation or sick days, customers would have little incentive to purchase a monthly pass instead of 4 weekly passes.

The monthly version would be a greater risk, and would offer no corresponding greater deal to compensate. So why buy it?

If WMATA wants customers to pay more up front, there will have to be some added incentive to do so. One option might be to make the 4-week pass a true monthly pass, which would essentially make the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of each month free to pass holders. Another option might be to reduce the cost of the 4-week pass, to be slightly less than 4-times the cost of a weekly pass.

Based on these ideas, Here's table showing suggested passes and prices:

WMATA deserves praise for considering more flexible payment options, but needs to more carefully consider its pricing structure. If monthly passes don't offer a stronger incentive, customers will probably not use them. That should not be taken as a sign that monthly passes aren't needed, only that the math isn't working for customers.

Positive impacts

According to the study, the great benefit of streetcars will be that they tremendously expand the number of households and business properties that are within walking distance of a rail station. With streetcars complementing Metro, the share of DC residents within a quarter mile of a rail stop will increase from today's 16% up to 50%.

That will correspond to an increase in the value of properties along streetcar lines by $5-7 billion. Another $5-8 billion in new development can be expected, resulting in a total property value increase of $10-15 billion due to streetcars.

That would result in $238-291 million in new tax revenue for the city each year, after completion of the 37-mile streetcar network. At that rate it would take only 6 years for the city to recuperate the full $1.5 billion cost. After that, the additional property tax revenues would be pure profit.

Tax revenue isn't the only benefit, of course. Compared to a no-streetcars baseline scenario, over a 10 year period the streetcar network is anticipated to induce 6,300-7,700 new jobs in the District, up to 12,000 new households, and up to 1.3 million square feet of new retail development.

That is a big deal.

The study goes on to conclude that these sort of dramatic results are only practical with streetcars.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is often mentioned as a less expensive alternative to streetcars. However, according to the study BRT would require exclusive rights-of-way in order to begin to achieve some of the same benefits as mixed-traffic streetcars. The property acquisitions necessary to provide exclusive bus lanes would more than negate any cost savings achieved by using buses, and the impacts on development would still be less. At the end of the day, BRT would be neither cheaper nor as effective.

Meanwhile, the expense of Metrorail and light rail would make them cost prohibitive to use for such an extensive network. If the District wants 37 miles of new transit, they are not options.

Negative impacts

There are of course some negative impacts. The largest of which is the effect such a tremendous increase in development demand would have on affordable housing.

The study recommends a range of policies to mitigate that impact. These include upzoning certain areas for greater density so that supply can keep up with demand, mandating inclusionary zoning in new developments, and greater code flexibility to allow accessory dwelling units such as alley houses.

Another negative impact is that streetcars running on a curbside alignment preclude the possibility of converting parking lanes to travel lanes during the peak period. With curbside streetcars, parking lanes must be either permanent or absent.

The report also mentions the complications inherent to bicycle-streetcar coexistence. It notes that quality bike infrastructure will be necessary along streetcar corridors in order to minimize conflict.

Funding mechanisms

Although federal funding may become available at some time, any realistic scenario for the funding of this network must include a substantial local contribution.

In addition to DDOT's normal funding mechanisms, the study identifies potential other sources of streetcar construction funds. Developer contributions and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) appear to be the most promising.

Developer contributions may be possible where very large developments would benefit from streetcar services, such as at Walter Reed or the Southwest Waterfront. The city could negotiate for a contribution of a few million dollars, knowing that the value of the development will increase by a greater amount with the presence of a streetcar.

Tax Increment Financing has even greater potential to fund a very large percentage of the program. TIF is a process in which the city uses bonds to build the initial capital investment, then repays the bonds using the increase in property tax revenue.

The report estimates that using the TIF process, the District could realistically support $600-900 million in bonds. That would approximate to between 40-60% of the total $1.5 billion cost.

These funding strategies will have to be explored in greater detail, and the negatives associated with streetcars will have to be addressed. But if this study proves correct, streetcars are going to be a big, big win. A decade after the system is built the city will be a better and more livable place, construction debt will be repaid, and the tax revenue will be rolling in.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.