"Traffic, traffic, traffic, parking, parking, traffic, parking"

Development

"Traffic, traffic, traffic, parking, parking, traffic, parking"

by Bianchi • October 17, 2008 1:58 pm

Those were the words of OP's Jennifer Steingasser at Wednesday's Giant meeting in Cleveland Park. Steingasser was referring to the fact that concerns about the project are almost all actually transportation concerns, not zoning concerns.

Corner of Wisconsin and Idaho today. Photo from Giant development team.

Commenter, now contributor, Bianchi attended the meeting, and sent me her thoughts. Here is some of her interesting color commentary, to add to the details Ben Thielen already covered yesterday. — David

The meeting was held in a suffocating room with no air circulation. It was swelteringly hot, literally. The approximately 100-200 people were visibly sweating, fragrant and waving handouts of the plan on their faces like fans. A quarter of those in attendance stood around the edges of the room because there weren't enough chairs. I arrived late and stood.

It wasn't just the temperature that was high—passions were too. One woman, who prefaced her comments by saying she supported the project, but just had some questions/concerns, asked about parking for the residential piece of the project while complaining that there was already too much density in the area (read “not enough street parking"). A man near her interrupted and said, "Yeah, you support it, just not in your back yard." She angrily shot back that was not true, she just had specific questions.

A gentleman who's lived nearby for many years pointed out that right next to this parcel is a very low density area with two parks. He recommended more residential units on the Wisconsin Avenue side than are currently planned because transit is plentiful here, our city needs the life and tax revenue of new residents, and Wisconsin is a major corridor and thus should have people living on it.

He also offered the observation that at 2 in the afternoon you can park anywhere you like. It gets crowded around 7 pm when people come home from work. He suggested that if some of his neighbors lived car-free as he has for years they could solve their own parking and traffic problem. He was applauded by half the room.

A young woman new to the area acknowledged that parking can be a problem but that she and her husband knew that before they bought. They chalked it up to, "It's a city. What do you expect?" She was applauded by half the room too.

Apparently the meeting was productive. Someone said it was, compared to the last one, and the OP reps concurred. Then it was adjourned for the debate. I forgot to ask about bike racks.

36 comments — Share	— tags: bike parking, Cleveland Park, development, parking, Smart Growth, traffic, Wisconsin Giant

ANC and residents debate loading, parking for Wisconsin Giant (Dec 16, 2008)
Wisconsin Giant plan is not too giant (Oct 16, 2008)
Catalyzing strip-mall sprawl into a mixed-use boulevard (Jun 27, 2008)
New parking recommendations released (Jun 4, 2008)
Wisconsin Ave Giant is a great project (Jun 3, 2008)

Comments

Bianchi, I'm not one hundred percent certain but I recall during the Sept meeting that the Rep from Giant said there will be dedicated space for bike racks in the parking garage. You should check with Trudy Reeves to make sure.

by Ben on Oct 17, 2008 2:12 pm

It's a tendency of people from the "historically affluent" areas of NW to think that although they live in a city that is properous and growing, that they are entitled to live a suburban lifestyle while getting to enjoy the amenities of a city. That selfish mentality has to change. I mean, my parents are no different, so perhaps it's a generational thing. They grew up in a car-centric world where the suburbs were the be all and end all. So maybe it's not surprising that they would oppose something as progressive as light rail...

by SG on Oct 17, 2008 2:35 pm

In the meetings I attended over the late spring/early summer, the concept of bike racks were definitely part of the equation.

by Andrew on Oct 17, 2008 2:41 pm

Good to hear about the bike racks.

Regarding "city living", a colleague of mine was at conference on long-term care for the elderly recently. There is a trend to place facilities for elders in cities, as a opposed to in the suburbs. One of the presentations was by a guy who teaches the grannies and gramp's how to live in the city. He (presenter) finds that many of the older ones remember from their childhoods about walking everywhere and others have to be taught to get a wheeled cart for schlepping grocieries, how to use the bus, etc. He reported that there is evidence that "city-living" enhances the quality of daily living in the elders in a way that is quantifiable in their biological health.

by Bianchi on Oct 17, 2008 3:16 pm

That's something that we suspected all along... city life is healthier. It's to hear about some (admittedly anecdotal) evidence to support our intuition that a more vibrant, walkable environment is better for people.

by Cavan on Oct 17, 2008 3:55 pm

Cavan, it's more than anecdotal. i mean what I heard from my colleague was anecdotal, but the city-life-is-healthy correlation is more than anecdotal. There are so many studies with results showing the relationship between living in walkable communities with access to transit and daily physical activity - which is a major modifiable risk factor for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, depression, asthma, arthritis, etc.- that the built environmnet is a prority at the CDC and Robert Woods Johnson (a major private funding organization for health research and prevention initiatives). It's frustrating that governmental bodies don't naturally require this empirical evidence to be used in transportation and building policies, if not for the humane goal of preventing suffering than for the pragmatic reason that poorer health, on a population scale, is a drag on the economy and costs a lot in medicare and medicaid. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If anyone wants/needs some studies on this topic to support your design/transportation project I will happily supply them.

by Bianchi on Oct 17, 2008 5:23 pm

So, as we pull all these theories together, we will be healthier and our children will be healthier if we sell off our scarce recreation space at an overcrowded school, which already lacks sufficient land to meet its recreation and academic space needs, to build a high rise apartment building.

by Is this really how we promote a healthy lifestyle? on Oct 17, 2008 6:46 pm

hmmm ... Before we move toward "the Manhattan model", might it not be worth investigating why highly built up, density-heavy areas such as Manhattan tend to be home only to the very well to-do, the very young (and relatively unemcumbered and poor) and the very poor? Might it have anything to do with the wealthy being able to buy their way out of the inconveniences of high density (i.e.,they can pay for taxis, domestic help with getting the children to their activities, parking, etc.), the young being able to far easier deal with the problems posed by lack of parking without having to resort to actually paying anything to do so (i.e., walk where they need to go, bike where they need to go, wait out in the very cold for 30 mins for that bus), and the very poor simply not having that many other options (the shelters and other social services are in the city after all)? Why is it in areas such as NYC, the bulk of the middleclass doesn't live in places like Manhattan? Could it have anything to do with that faced with all the grown up challenges that come one's way when bicycling, by necessity, becomes a relaxation activity and not a means to actually get to work ... that these folks simply can't afford to live in a place where they have to have there hands in their pockets at every turn to deal with even the most mundane of everyday lives?

by Lance on Oct 17, 2008 7:10 pm

*that these folks simply can't afford to live in a place where they have to have their hands in their pockets at every turn to deal with even the most mundane aspectes of their everyday lives.

by Lance on Oct 17, 2008 7:15 pm

Perhaps Manhattan has the demographic breakdown it does because of land values. The rich can afford to buy comfortable homes, the young can make do with smaller spaces and the very poor can rely on social services. And high land values are a result of high demand, people want to live there.

If I recall correctly, it was yuppies who priced the middle class out of Manhattan, not the lack of transportation. (Given there's a subway.)

by Steve on Oct 17, 2008 7:24 pm

Lance: If you think that only the wealthy elderly live in Manhattan, then you would be gravely mistaken. Not only because of rent control, but also because in ungentrified areas, it was legitimately easier for the elderly to maintain independence.

You really do notice more gray hairs and shopping carts in New York, and Bianchi's ideas do at least make anecdotal sense. I can't find anything on PubMed, though. Cost has become a problem, although I did not live in New York to see what percentage of older people were kicked out.

Additionally this isn't the Manhattan model. This kind of density and walkability is taken from European cities. Basel, Copenhagen, and Turin are real urban settings that are not nearly as dense as Brooklyn but still offer walkability.

by The King of Spain on Oct 17, 2008 11:26 pm

ITRHWPAHL:

I don't approve of the Janney land-swap either but you are missing the bigger picture. There is a lot of undeveloped "parkland" in Tenleytown.

Even with the new fields in Fort Reno, about 70% of the land is barely-used, unprogrammed grassy space. Then there are the useless grass strips around Tenley Circle. And the unused strip on Davenport. And the ones on Reno Road. These are not parks by any stretch of the imagination, they're just fields and their use as greenery is devalued by the fact that most yards in the area have better landscaping.

I think they should build up some of the land so that the remaining parks are well used and actually contribute to the exciting and relaxation of a person experiencing the city. Were I King of DC I would have DCPL build the library in Fort Reno Park and finance it by selling the land at Albermarle street.

by The King of Spain on Oct 17, 2008 11:48 pm

healthy lifestyle, What are you talking about? The Giant project doesn't involve a school or recreation area. I think you've got you're projects mixed up.

King of Spain, do a regular, without limits PubMed search using Built Environment Physical Activity.

by Bianchi on Oct 18, 2008 4:51 am

this is an experiement to see if this will link to this abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18541175?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

by Bianchi on Oct 18, 2008 5:04 am

King: A library contributes heavily to the vitality and excitement of a neighborhood. The Tenleytown library's location at the Metro made it one of the most heavily used neighborhood libraries in the system before it closed, and moving it away from that location would greatly diminish its usefulness, especially to the our children who attend the schools that are near the library, our older citizens who live in nearby senior housing, area residents who combine a visit to the library with other errands in the core of Tenleytown or stop by on their way to or from work, and District residents, some from outside the neighborhood as well as some Friendship Heights, Maryland residents, who do not have cars or choose not to use them and who take the Metro or bus to the library. So leaving aside the fact that Fort Reno is a national park and that the construction of the Tenleytown library is fully funded, moving this important public building away from transportation and away from the center of the community it anchors would be a terrible planning mistake. Some people might value another Starbucks more highly than a library, but personally, I am glad that I live in a community that understands the value of schools and libraries and realizes that a convenient library with a broad collection serving many ages and interests at the center of our community is an important asset.

I also think that there is value in having unprogrammed grassy space in our parks in our neighborhoods, and that children and adults benefit from unprogrammed space where they can walk, picnic, throw a ball around, etc., and if you go to the areas that you describe you will find that they are not unused. I know that some "smart growth" advocates have suggested that the children in Tenleytown should be playing in "parks" created in tiny "green spaces," such as the WMATA-owned (and used) strip between 42nd Street and Wisconsin next to the Volvo/VW dealership near Ellicott or even on the sidewalks, but most residents do not find that to be acceptable.

Bianchi: I mentioned that project, since your statement about the health benefits of adding density was a general statement, and GGW is a strong advocate for selling off the elementary school’s soccer field and putting 174 apartments there, advocating a project in Tenleytown that would violate the strong, protective zoning overlay he enjoys in his own neighborhood.

by ITRHWPAHL on Oct 18, 2008 8:49 am

I do not know of one person who suggests moving the location of the Tenley Library to a different location. The issue is whether the site can be leveraged into so much more.

Thanks to the ineptitude of the Mayor's office and NIMBY activists, who knows what will happen there.

by William on Oct 18, 2008 9:41 am

ITRHWPAHL: I don't believe I've ever taken a stand on selling off the soccer field. I think that a mixed-use PPP on the site is a good idea, but the right place to put most or all of the housing is atop the library. Unfortunately, from what I understand, ODMPED totally screwed up the RFP, leading to the present conundrum.

by David Alpert on Oct 18, 2008 9:50 am

Here's another called "Built environment correlates of walking: a review."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18562973?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

by Bianchi on Oct 18, 2008 10:30 am

William: Moving the location of the library was King of Spain’s suggestion in his 11:48 pm post, but others have suggested it as well on the local listserves (or King using different aliases). I think that we can both agree that the ineptitude of the Mayor’s office lead to the multi-year delay in the library construction and the delay in the planned school expansion as well as the possible loss of necessary recreation space.

David: The original RFP included the library land, and all the developers included the library land in their proposals. If you had actually studied the site, and the proposals, which were responsive to an RFP that offered both the library and the school land, you would realize that the library site was far too small for a mixed use project, something that had been examined years ago and no one was interested, and that all the developers needed to use the soccer field as well as the library land in order to have sufficient land for their project. So, your statement that a mixed use PPP on this site is a good idea IS support for selling off the soccer field, or was simply the result of complete ignorance of the fact that the library site has a land area of only 15,000 square feet and with a PPP must accommodate the library as well as the developer’s project, and so every developer found that they would need to use the soccer field as well. Perhaps you know a way to profitably put a library, 20,000 square feet plus room for future expansion, and 174 apartments on 15,000 square feet of land.

by ITRHWPAHL on Oct 18, 2008 11:04 am

ITRHWPAHL:

I merely offered an opinion based on the potential growth of the neighborhood. I'd rather have one use on the present small site Your points are good, but with the exception of proximity to Iona, many needs would be just as well or better met by a more northerly library on a site that is still central to the community. Ideas can't hurt.

The unprogrammed grassy space is a good thing; the problem is the glut of it in a very leafy neighborhood. Most of the spaces I mentioned are those small strips of land that, similar to the example you raised, are washed in noise and exhaust. Additionally, ALL of the parkland except for fields and the community garden in Reno is formless, boring space and if 40% of it were crafted to have more recreation facilities, a dog run, or just a nicer landscaped park, it would be a real asset to the community. Northwest has very few parks that act as social centers, a problem which limits community development.

by The King of Spain on Oct 18, 2008 11:26 am

King: When you say that you would rather have one use on the small site, are you suggesting that DCPL should return the library land to DCPS for an expanded Janney campus (back to its original size)?

IMO, having the library so close to the Metro entrance is one of the things that makes it so attractive as a community anchor and that made it so popular even with library-users from outside the neighborhood. If by more northerly site, you mean privately owned (Pedas) property on the Fresh Fields block that would be equally close to Metro, it would still be close to Metro, a bit further for the elementary school children, but closer for middle and high school students. If DC bought that land, perhaps near the pedestrian/garage traffic light, it would be a reasonable site for a library although many might mourn the loss of the small local businesses. If the library is further north, it loses some of the advantage of being close to Metro, and, like the Cleveland Park library a long block from the Metro, wouldn't be viewed as quite as convenient for the elderly or for dropping off books, holding meetings or browsing the stacks and reading on the way home from work.

As you probably know, almost all of Fort Reno is under Federal control, and much of it is behind security fences. There is an informal dog run, not far from the community garden, which does also act as a social center. And if you climb up to the top of the hill alongside the security fence, there are incredible views to the west.

by ITRHWPAHL on Oct 18, 2008 1:36 pm

With all this talk of a library, I'm curious as to what kind of usage they generate in the Internet age. I know just about anything I would have used a library for in the past, I can now use my computer for. Granted some libraries provide public meeting rooms, but I have a hard time seeing their core mission --- providing a place for research --- faring well with the competition from the Internet. I understand we'll always need places to store valuable documents, and not all documents are yet on line (though that's changing very quickly.) Wouldn't the city be better off selling this valuable real estate and using the proceeds to fund more modern-day needs such as free WiFi throughout the city, high-tech preservation storage for valuable documents, public meeting rooms, and public parks?

It really sounds like a waste of resources to be proposing building new libraries and holding on to the old ones. I know I'm going to hear from some people about "but I use them every day" ... and to that I counter "ask your grandchildren the last time they were in a library." Libraries are our current day dinosaurs.

by Lance on Oct 18, 2008 2:06 pm

What is the giant proposal?

by Jazzy on Oct 18, 2008 3:03 pm

Lance, go find a library (Wheaton's a good example) and actually go inside to see how busy it is. The thing is filled to capacity with people using the computer lab or using the free wifi, people having meetings & study groups in the private rooms, people checking out & reading books, and private organizations using the reserved large meeting rooms. Practically every day there's some type of community event. The age distribution is mostly weighted towards age 10-30.

Yes, there are *plenty* of people who don't read, lots more who don't read dead-tree books, and most of the rest in this area are wealthy enough to buy their books at Barnes & Noble or Amazon. But a library serves the rest of us (disproportionately young & lower/middle class) extremely well. It also allows those who havn't crossed the 'digital divide' in this day and age to begin the process.

I can't remember the last time I went to Wheaton Library when it had an empty parking lot or there wasn't a line to check out books, and while it's one of the larger examples, it's not even in a walkable area. Rockville Library positively buzzes.

I've always followed online book efforts closely(Project Gutenberg Inc. taught me copyright law in their first FAQ), and I can tell you that less than 0.1% of the books people want to read are available online free & legally, less than 1% of the books are available online legally, and less than 25% are even in print. Piracy doesn't even begin to compensate, for everything but technical topics & bestsellers.

Will the situation change? Certainly, and your criticism *might* be applicable in about 20 years... but A) people will always read dead tree books on some level, the habit is too ingrained in our culture, and B) the other community-centered purposes of a library will always remain.

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 3:21 pm

Jazzy:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1327

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1325

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 3:24 pm

Lance: My nephews used a library yesterday. Their parents have them check in to study after school, because it is in between an after-school program and independence. In the mean time, checking out books is not the primary use of a library any more. Even then, the branch library was never meant for research.

Similarly, your assumption that anything you can get in a library you can get online is not true for lower-class residents so far. The role as a center for the young and old is really the real mission - books are just for accidents. Also, people like to read books.

ITRHWPAH: Do people really take Metrorail to a community library? Busses seem reasonable, as does walking, but the cost and distance of rail would be excessive. Do you have an concrete evidence? I also recognize your defence of Janney's interests, but a library-community center in the park would be closer to Murch, Deal, and Wilson, as well as St. Paul's Day Care and most of the future growth in the area.

Lastly, I agree Reno is full of potential. But it could be more.

by The King of Spain on Oct 18, 2008 3:32 pm

King of Spain: One thing that is entirely online is a system-wide book catalog - Finding our that your branch doesn't have a book, and using Metro to hop over to branch X and pick it up is not out of the question. I don't expect it to be common, but serving 'Metro stations without libraries nearby' & in particular the carless population works fine whether it's bus or Metro.

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 3:44 pm

Squalish/King, Okay, I see where we have a problem in regards to copyrighted books not being readily available ... yet. I do suspect though that within 10 - 20 years, that won't be the case. And when you build a library, you're looking at a time span far greater than that to recoup your investment.

As for people using it to access free WiFi ... or computers themselves. Part of my point was that if we spent less money on libraries, we'd have more to spend on ensuring all our population was included in the Internet revolution. We'd fund free WiFi city-wide ... we'd make available inexpensive laptops to our public school pupils, fund computer training classes for the elderly, etc. etc.

Also, I don't disagree that libraries are currently being used to do 100 and 1 things outside their core mission. And I'm not surprised. If I ran a library and I found my core mission was threatened, I'd find another way to use the public funds being given me. The problem is, all these services can be provided to the public in other ways and other places ... and, most importantly, in a more transparent manner so that the taxpayer can have a better say over what they want to fund, how much they want to fund it, etc. And one giagantic building for it all ... not only makes the choices less flexible, but means you're expecting the staff to be experts at everything ... and you may be inadvertently mixing services that would best be left unmixed. Take the "place to leave the kids example" ... In addition to being a place where community groups can rent meeting space, and the other community uses we mentioned, it's pretty much a given that libraries also serve the homeless during the colder months, hotter months, rainy days. Wouldn't having separate funds available for providing child care areas AND homeless facilities make more sense? I know this is an extreme example, but basically, I think we've agreed that the core historic core mission for libraries is on its way out. So, rather than try to re-invent what a library is, wouldn't it make more sense to save some construction money ... and use it to fund directly (and with more accountability and transparency) the uses we want to see provided?

by Lance on Oct 18, 2008 4:06 pm

I said your criticisms *might* be valid in 20 years regarding storing books - though there will still be some value there, if this were constructed two decades down the line I would likely scale back the book section, not eliminate it. These concerns are not valid right now. Libraries as simple centers for book reading & distribution are still immensely popular & necessary for the functioning of our K-12 educational system and our adult aducational system.

And no, I don't agree that distinct facilities are inherently superior. Child care areas are loud, expensive places - a 'study hall' is precisely what a library is. Area wifi is already nearly free, and shouldn't be compared to the value of having a quiet desk & reference system available. Whatever the changing needs of the community, a library-as-community-center can adapt, whereas distinct facilities (with more accountability and transparency) are mired in regulation, budget, & sunk costs that make it difficult to do so.

The synergy of having a library and a school next to each other, or in the same building, is powerful.

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 4:52 pm

I have taken metrorail to MLK to attend meetings there and indeed to go to the library. So at least one person does take metrorail to the library.

by Jazzy on Oct 18, 2008 5:09 pm

Squalish said:"Whatever the changing needs of the community, a library-as-community-center can adapt, whereas distinct facilities (with more accountability and transparency) are mired in regulation, budget, & sunk costs that make it difficult to do so."

So, you do see my point ... kinda. I don't agree with you though that the true needs of the community can be met without having the accountability and transparency which direct funding of goals provides. I mean, don't you think the homeless deserve a real homeless shelter? Or that schools should get their own funding for the facilities they deem appropriate to their needs?

by Lance on Oct 18, 2008 5:24 pm

I don't think the homeless are going to be using a library that shuts down at 9PM every night for housing, nor that they would be allowed to. I welcome homeless shelters. Free wi-fi is a trivial amenity - and whether a computer lab deserves to be in a library or not is a question you're going to have to take up with the librarians and the public who uses it. I'm not seeing a "community computer lab" anywhere nearby. Is it just an instinct you have to quibble with definitions?

Libraries are commonly used and accepted as community centers - it's not an issue of what the school wants, what gets built on a joint parcel has to be a joint decision between the library and the school system (and therefore the community). Both systems are perpetually hard up for cash, and community activists want green space as well. Explicit funding of the dozens of different useful things that a library provides is simply not necessary, and would likely negatively impact those things compared to the ability a multipurpose library has to provide them.

The issue with Janey is that the schoolsystem is holding on to a big plot of land next to a Metro station, while lacking the money for additional work on historically-protected Janey. Meanwhile, apparently underground parking is not an option, and people want to preserve the amount of recreation space students & the community has available. The more uses you can fit into one area (a library that serves both schoolchildren and residents, for example) the better.

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 5:44 pm

Squalish: I agree that having a library and school close to each other enhances both facilities, but I think you might want to do some fact checking.

(1) Janney isn’t holding a “big plot of land”: Janney’s land is not adequate to accommodate the planned expansion and required outdoor program space, much less cede any school land to an apartment building, even it that apartment building is partially on the 15,000 square foot library site.

(2) According to the DM's RFP, DCPS has $22.1 million allocated for Janney’s capital improvement plan, for Janney’s expansion and renovation. The consultant’s recommendation was that Janney’s expansion and modernization would be 8th in the priorities list in the facilities plan, but following intervention by Cheh, when the facilities plan was published, Janney had been moved down toward the bottom of the list.

(3) Underground parking is a possibility in a DCPS project, so a PPP is not necessary for underground parking for the school, but underground parking is not an essential part of the expansion and modernization. The library did not plan on using underground parking on its site, possibly because the underground stream would complicate the excavation. While it will be impossible for Janney to have sufficient recreation space for its students to meet current requirements—as current space doesn’t meet those requirements and some is necessarily lost with the expansion to relieve overcrowding, the community would like its students not to lose what little space is currently available and isn’t necessary for the expansion. Janney students are also currently sharing privately owned recreation space that is slated for development. They will lose that space when construction begins. In addition, when the school isn’t in session, the soccer field is used by other District teams.

by ITRHWPAHL on Oct 18, 2008 6:27 pm

Squalish, When's the last time you saw a computer lab ... other than in a library? ... they disappeared a long long time ago .... And for good reason. New technology has made computer labs archane. That's part of the problem that comes about when you have funding in search of a mission ... instead of funding in support of a mission ... bad choices being made all around with hard-earned taxpayer money.

by Lance on Oct 19, 2008 8:07 am

I read that the site has a high water table that makes underground parking impractical. I understand the hesitancy to build over recreation - and in a previous post I brought up green roofs for recreation.

Since then, I've been playing around with a model of what a New Janney PPP(emphasis on public) could look like, given open minds & zoning.

by Squalish on Oct 25, 2008 12:46 pm

Here's my proposal.

by Squalish on Oct 25, 2008 12:46 pm