Bloomingdale is not Alaskan tundra

Development

by David Alpert • January 6, 2009 11:21 am

Ryan Avent had the same reaction I did to the new No Drilling at McMillan blog. Its intro reads,

This looks pretty nice to me.
This site is dedicated to saving 25 acres of green space in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. While people who say they care about the environment are outraged about drilling in the northern tundra of Alaska, there seems to be little concern for turning 25 acres of green space in the nation's capital into concrete and asphalt. Once it is developed it will be lost forever.

Protecting the environment is much more complex than a simple "development bad, open space good" mantra. Enabling more people to live in the city lets more people choose a sustainable lifestyle. It allows people to live a 20-minute bus ride from work instead of a 60-minute drive. It also lowers pressure to develop distant farms and forests in western Maryland and central Virginia.

Avent adds,

The GOP wants to drill in Alaska to unearth oil, needed to fuel automobiles, needed to maintain a drivable way of life, because there are insufficient quantities of dense, walkable, urban developments in this country, such as that proposed for the McMillan site. Sigh.

Ironically, 64% of responders of the little poll in the sidebar of the site voted for development, even though that option is worded in a slanted way. The option reads, "Allow pre-selected private corporations to maximize their profits by maximizing square footage and turning as much of this green space into concrete and asphalt as possible." Of course, he could have written, "Enable more people to live in DC by integrating open space, housing, and retail into a current dead zone in the middle of our neighborhoods, ensuring more customers for our neighborhood businesses." But that's not how the blog's author, Paul Kirk, sees it.

Kirk has some specific complaints, some of which may be valid. The plan only includes one through street across the site, which does create a bit of a superblock feel. Could the public plazas abut roads instead of creating completely separate areas that might end up deserted and dangerous at night? On the other hand, more streets would actually pave more of the site, while these pedestrian allées increase the open, green space. According to Tania Jackson of Jair Lynch, the development group, they designed many of the residences to face this open space to create "eyes on the street" at all hours. Plus, improving transit to this area is a good idea. But "More Transit Amid the Drilling At McMillan" is not the name of the blog.

Kirk also raises hysteria over including affordable housing:

Residential buildings that are four stories high? Just how many low-income units are intended for this project? ... It's about time other neighborhoods, like Georgetown and upper Northwest shoulder some of the burden of supplying housing for people that don't have jobs. There are already enough people walking around all day and night with nothing better to do than loiter, rob, steal, deal drugs, assault and murder us. It is not my opinion that low-income housing is a magnet for these people, it is a well-documented fact of life in the city.

Actually, no. New affordable housing we create in DC goes to people like police officers, teachers, and the many other people with good, important, but not high-paying jobs. There are many senior citizens in the area who want to stay in their neighborhood but can't afford much of the housing as Bloomingdale's prices have risen.

The McMillan team and the city haven't finalized the percentages of affordable housing and the income eligibility levels. They should at least exceed the the new inclusionary zoning rules, which set aside only 12-15% of units for low and moderate income units. Most of those (half for low rise buildings and all for high rise buildings) can go to households making up to 80% of Area Median Income (around $80,000 for a family of four), with the rest reserved for households at 50% AMI (around $50,000).

And yes, all parts of the city should do their part for housing affordability. That's why a citywide inclusionary zoning policy is important, and why we should have mixed-income housing in every project on public land anywhere in the city.

At the beginning of December, I bought a Christmas tree at the Ross Elementary School in Dupont. The parent volunteering there lives in Bloomingdale, where he and his family bought their house around ten years ago. Today, he said, they wouldn't be able to afford a townhouse in Bloomingdale. Adding housing opportunities for more families like his will make Bloomingdale safer and better, not more dangerous. And it's a far better use of a giant empty field that right now serves as little more than an interesting visual curiosity to people speeding through the area on Michigan Avenue.

55 comments — Share	— tags: affordable housing, anti neighbors, Bloomingdale, DC, environment, McMillan site

How about a North Capitol Red Line branch? (Jan 4, 2009)
Delay scuttles affordable housing at 14th and U (Jul 28, 2008)
Pop the top or pack 'em in the back? (Apr 23, 2008)
Maybe they can build 'em like they used to (Dec 9, 2007)
"Saving" a neighborhood in order to destroy it (Jun 29, 2007)

Comments

Well said. The only way to make urban, transit-oriented housing more affordable is to build more of it. And you are right, we need farms much more than we need an empty field in the middle of a major city.

by Cavan on Jan 6, 2009 11:49 am

sigh is right. go to my blog and read some of the comments that paul kirk left there. the guy is somewhat inflexible, to be polite.

by IMGoph on Jan 6, 2009 11:59 am

Yeah, but there still isn't much public green space in this area. I agree with you post, but development should take this into account. Families moving into and living in the area should have space for recreation. I would propose re-opening up the actual reservoir site as a park. I don't think there's any real security risk by doing so. This would mainly involve tearing the fence down and building one immediately next to the reservoir - just like the Onassis reservoir in Central Park. Or, you could cover the reservoir and make a lot more park space. This would complement development of the sand filtration site quite nicely.

by Neb on Jan 6, 2009 12:20 pm

I found this blog a little over a week ago and left the author a comment. It is estimated by DMPED that this project could mean an investment of up to 1 billion dollars in the neighborhood. Yet Kirk somehow thinks that kind of investment into space that is currently fenced off from public will bring nothing but more squalor.

There is a theme I've detected from the Anti-McMillan and another project in Bloomingale regarding affordable housing. Somehow they are not grasping that the affordable housing is a modest percentage of the total housing stock with most units being market rate.

Paul Kirk wrote:

"Adding 1,200 of units of taxpayer-subsidized housing in Bloomingdale will create new opportunities and destinations for criminals that tend to hang around Florida Avenue."

I believe 1200 is the total number of units. That might put the affordable housing component at 300 units. Precisely why we build projects like this is because we recognize concentrations of all low income residents is bad. Yet Kirk trys to frame it as if this is will be a housing project.

Lastly, I had the same idea as Neb about opening up some of the Reservoir site to be a park. I don't necessarily think you want to do that ASAP but maybe target it coincide with the delivery of this redevelopment of the Sand Filtration site.

by Paul S on Jan 6, 2009 12:27 pm

Pulling in the reservoir site as part of a larger park would also encourage Howard University to pay more attention to their extensive frontage on to the reservior. It has such great potential, but the super block issue is a big one. If they don't link up to the surrounding neighborhood as much as possible it will not help mobility and security in the area.

by Thayer-D on Jan 6, 2009 1:06 pm

There's a big difference between affordable 'workforce' housing and traditional Section 8-style housing.

Does anyone know the actual parameters for the affordable housing component?

by Hillman on Jan 6, 2009 1:29 pm

“Protecting the environment is much more complex than a simple "development bad, open space good" mantra. . . . It also lowers pressure to develop distant farms and forests in western Maryland and central Virginia.”

Protecting the environment is much, much, much more complex than a simple “dense development good, open space available to city residents bad” mantra. And, certainly, you cannot believe that high density and eliminating green space in the city will actually reduce pressure to develop distant farms and forests, and not simply allow developers to have larger lawns in the suburbs.

by JR on Jan 6, 2009 1:41 pm

DC is full of green, leafy space. What DC needs more of is useful green space. Neighborhoods like this one are cursed with wide superblocks of grass (and pavement, sure) that no one can touch and really aren't that attractive. Having less green space, but better green space, is something people in DC who are afraid of Manhattan, just haven't gotten yet.

There is just so much non-park space in DC, from the Fort Circle Parks to all the marginal space around federal buildings, to all the leftover space from HUD projects. As EYA's image shows, that space will at least be useful for little bits of daily use.

I do think they could do something more clever with the silos, though. They're just kind of sitting out there, being relics. Artists studios? Build the units around them and make them fragmentary like the theater of Marcellus?

by цarьchitect on Jan 6, 2009 2:01 pm

Cavan said:

The only way to make urban, transit-oriented housing more affordable is to build more of it. And you are right, we need farms much more than we need an empty field in the middle of a major city.

I'd rather see the land as a farm.

I realize that this option isn't on the table, and I'd rather see the site built out than lying fallow.

But I'm certain that turning some brownfield/greyfield site into a high-value farm, growing produce for local sale, would result in better planning and environmental decisions for the region as a whole. People might understand that we don't have to blow vast quantities of fossil fuel in flying produce in from New Zealand, or in pumping billions of gallons of water over California mountain ranges.

Transit oriented development is a 19th century solution - the philosophy proposes that settlements designed for walking, the horse-car, and the streetcar are the highest and best land use. TOD is better than 1950s car-centered planning, but it looks backwards, toward historical solutions for historical problems; it doesn't account for newer problems with the shape of the city like, for instance, our energy-intensive food system. It's a start, not a solution, and it's more important on the levels of site and street than neighborhood and region.

Nor is TOD this the only historical model. Through most of their histories, the Netherlands and the UK, the most densely-populated states in the world, have followed a different pattern. Cities are intimately connected with the agricultural areas immediately around them. Settlement at all scales, from city to hamlet, is denser and smaller than in the states. Not just denser - smaller. Except for London and Manchester, there was a sharp line between city and agricultural countryside, and farms lay close in to the heart of the city.

It's not so apparent today, especially with America's successful export of the motorway and detached-housing suburbs. The bones are still there. It's clearest in the industrial towns of Northern England and in the urbanized area from Rotterdam through Amsterdam. Settlement is a mesh of dense town centers surrounded by farmland and pastureland. It's possible to leave the center of the Hague, and run to districts where you're surrounded by greenhouses. There are big industrial towns in Lancashire down in the valleys, full of mills and rowhouses, but with moors and pasturage just over the last wall. We've seen it here too, with working farms in New York City. Los Angeles was like this for a brief moment, in equal measures truth and founding ideal. From maybe 1890 through 1920, you could still see streetcar-oriented commercial centers surrounded by orange groves.

by David Ramos on Jan 6, 2009 2:24 pm

It would be very interesting to see whether this site could work as a farm, but I suspect the answer is that it would require massive subsidies. The land is simply too valuable.

The superblock concern is a valid one. Looking at Google Maps, it looks to me like there should be two streets through this development, not one, and the one that is there is in totally the wrong place. Right now, they plan to extend Evarts, which is useless -- Evarts is only one block long to the east and zero to the west. Instead, they should extend (1) Douglas, which is only a stub to the east but would link up with McMillan Drive to the west, and (2) Girard, which (after changing its name to Franklin) runs about 25 blocks to the east.

by tom veil on Jan 6, 2009 2:42 pm

Ii had fun voting to "support corporate greed." :-)

Build away- and bring metro- or at least a trolley up North capitol street!

by Tom A on Jan 6, 2009 3:25 pm

Interesting ideas, David. I'd point out that just because an idea is old does not make it bad, however. TOD is indeed an old idea, but that doesn't make it bad, not does it mean it is 'looking backward.'

I've seen several analyses of urban farming ideas, and in a place like DC, almost none of them make economic sense. The value of the land is just too high. Indeed, returning to a older style of urbanism where a city is better linked to its hinterland is more efficient, but that doesn't jibe with the idea of taking valuable land in the core and using it for agriculture.

Our energy intensive food system is a product of our energy intensive systems in general - and TOD is a move in the other direction. I would think it complements efforts for local food more than it hurts them.

Urban agriculture may make more sense in places that are relatively low density with lots of open land (see Detroit, for example), but at this location in DC? I don't see it - certainly not as anything more than a novelty or demonstration project.

by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2009 3:50 pm

Yes, saving the environment is complicated, I agree, but the answer is not neccesarily taking what was designed at one time to be a park, paving it over and packing it with houses -- and leaving a tiny bit of it for green space.

I imagine we could pack a lot of houses onto Rock Creek Park, or the National Mall, following this thinking, and save a bunch of land faraway. It is easy to criticize those of us who would prefer "no drilling on McMillan" as simple when the reverse is equally true -- packing houses into urban environments is no soluation either.

Living nearby this proposed development, I am pretty sad to see the proposal how much will be paved over and packed with houses. I live on Bryant St. and my block alone has 72 houses, and maybe 20 or more have basement units, and at five are group houses of some sort. This is not unusual around this part of town -- urban life is dense.

While it may be easy to say that those of us who live around here who want a green space for taking a walk, playing some frisbee or catch, without hopping in the car and driving are somehow not environmentally intelligent, it isn't true.

I would advocate for keeping the entire site a park as a way to promote and sustain inner-city livability, or maybe adding a recreation center or something that promotes physical activity, but keep away from housing and retail (how many shops does America need anyway?).

You may not agree that we should save McMillan as green space, but that doesn't mean that those of us who want to keep it green are environmentally ridiculous. We just have different approaches to this piece of land.

by Rene Wallis on Jan 6, 2009 3:53 pm

Regarding the green space. I'm comfortable with the 3 acres the developers are providing. What I don't understand is why they have only provided for 100,000 SF of retail on a 25 acre site. The development sits in the middle of a densely populated area with several universities and hospitals. I know the area can support more tax generating retail than 100,000 SF. By the time you stick a 65,000 SF grocery store on the site you are pretty much done.

I challenge the developers to come up with a more viable and adequate retail plan with more retail SF.

by Carla on Jan 6, 2009 4:12 pm

Seriously, how many 25 acre parks are actually used? Such superparks have centers of activities that are only accesable by automobile and are only used on the weekends. They are then left alone and the only thing that happens on them at other times is stuff that its participants want hidden from view.

No sports field or picnic area takes up 25 acres. The Maryland SoccerPlex has 19 full size soccer fields, acres of parking, an indoor soccer field, and a 7k seat stadium and is very spread out and suburban and it takes up 160 acres.

When it comes to parks, it's not size that matters but context. After all, DuPont Circle probably has a higher patronage than Rock Creek park (except the zoo). You could point out Central Park in New York. However, it's context is one of centrality that serves millions and is fundamentally transit-oriented. A park on this site would not have a central location, would have low patronage, and would not do much of anything to contribute to anyone's quality of life.

This is not an appropriate place for a suburban park. If you want to drive to a suburban park, there are plenty in the suburbs. The land use you propose is purely suburban in nature. While DC has suburban parts, that kind of development is not appropriate for a place that could be much easier hooked up to mass transit than some new McMansion subdivision in Frederick.

This is not about "agreeing to disagree" or us "both being right just having different opinions." It's not. You just want nothing to be built, nothing to change. It's really similar to the situation that I wrote about here: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1456

It's that kind of thinking that got us into this current pickle of car-dependence and oil addiction in most of our nation. Surburbia is all about separation of uses and large spread out things. It's also about drilling for oil. That's quite un-environmental. The damage that is done by extracting and burning fossil fuels at the rate we do is far more than any good a 25 acre piece of empty fenced off land is going to do. The hundreds of acres of farmland in Loudoun County that it will take to build and equivalent number of McMansions in place of the apartment/townhouse units on 25 acres vs. 25 acres of open dead space is not an even trade either.

I would have an easier time seeing your argument if it weren't just so wrong. I also don't believe that a park is a motivation. If it was, how come no one has been advocating for one for the past 25 years? How come a park only gets thrown out there when the city hold hearings about development plans? The timing is a bit curious.

by Cavan on Jan 6, 2009 4:14 pm

The fact that you say you need the ENTIRE site for a park implies that you are less interested in having all your daily needs within walking distance than you are in stopping new people from living nearby. How many acres of parkland do you think you need? If the site were twice as large, would you still say all of it should be preserved as a park? Where does it end? This site is larger than Meridian Hill Park or any of the squares downtown. Why does your neighborhood, which is already graced with cemeteries, universty lawns and golf courses, need what would be one of the city's largest parks?

Furthermore, why do you need another community recreation center when Langley is just a few blocks south?

It's those sort of nonsense suggestions that make reasonable people think opponents to this plan are nothing but anti-density NIMBYs who will throw anything they can think of up against the wall in the hope that something will stick.

Nobody here is unreasonable. Everyone thinks *some* usable open space should be included in any redevelopment plan. But to suggest the entire site has to be a park is ridiculous, and isn't a position that can be taken seriously.

by BeyondDC on Jan 6, 2009 4:23 pm

Oh, I love it when I get to agree with everyone.

Yes on reopening McMillan Park and moving the fence back. You can get right up to the Reservoir on one side, but not the other, where's the safety in that. In addition other reservoirs in DC are easily accessible so it's kind of stupid. If they're really concerned with safety they can cap the reservoir as many places (Seattle, Montreal for example) have done and put sports fields on top.

Yes to Tom Veil's ideas about where the roads should be - if McMillan Drive is opened (now a mean man at the gate will yell at you if you try to take pictures). There may also be issues about the foundation as there are big empty spaces beneath parts of the site.

Green space should be increased though. In addition to McMillan Park, some could be had at the Soldier's home property and Catholic U if they opened it up a bit. The sand filtration site could have more if they got rid of the useless circulator road on the south 3rd. And Glenwood Cemetery should take a page from Congressional and open its gates to dog walkers.

by David C on Jan 6, 2009 4:30 pm

While I don't know all the intracacies of this project, my gut feel is that this site is well positioned to provide 'in town' housing without disturbing existing neighbhorhoods .... other than the fact that those who live nearby may have bought with the expectation that they were buying near 'open space'. However, this open space was never deemed 'open space' (e.g., a 'park'), so anyone buying there should have known that the possibility of it being developed always existed.

However ... I'd like to comment on a couple of David's "assumptions":

"New affordable housing we create in DC goes to people like police officers, teachers, and the many other people with good, important, but not high-paying jobs. There are many senior citizens in the area who want to stay in their neighborhood but can't afford much of the housing as Bloomingdale's prices have risen."

1) IF we have a problem getting police officers, teachers, etc. in here (and I don't think we do considering what teachers are doing to hang on to their jobs ... even those that shouldn't be teaching), THEN we should just pay more. (Which is what I think I hear happening ... for qualified teachers.) We don't need to be making decisions for them as to where they should live or what kind of housing suits them. We should pay them what they are worth, and let THEM decide where they want to live.

As for the senior citizens wanting to stay in neighborhoods that they couldn't today afford to buy in to ... Well, DUH, that's how house buying works. When you're young and poor (or old and poor for that matter), you buy into areas that you can afford ... And as the neighborhood ages ... (and you do too) ... and it gets better ... (and, maybe, you do too), your 'investment' grows ... And you can decide to either stay ... since you don't need to buy into a neighborhood you couldn't afford to buy into today (since you're already there)... OR you sell and move to some low housing cost place like Richmond or Balitmore ... or Florida ... And live off your investment. I.e., There's nothing wrong with the picture here where oldsters couldn't today afford to buy into the home they are already in (with their salary), since they already own it ... and all the possibilities it gives them to stay ... or go elsewhere.

by Lance on Jan 6, 2009 4:36 pm

Lance,

I think the problem for seniors comes from rising property taxes as their home increases in value. So they can't stay and don't want to leave.

by David C on Jan 6, 2009 4:47 pm

david c: the problem with that is that seniors shouldn't be having to worry about property tax issues. the city has passed enough laws to protect seniors from rapidly rising assessments. there is a cap on how much your tax can raise from year to year, and there is a limit on taxes for seniors. the city is doing what it can to keep the market from affecting those on a fixed income.

by IMGoph on Jan 6, 2009 4:52 pm

I have to say I agree with Lance on that second point (a first I think.) As for Lance's other point, I too question the need to include "workforce housing" in this project. Didn't Price of Petworth just have a 'good deal or not' in that area for under 200k? I think that's really just a gesture to the "old time residents" so they won't feel pressured out by the "newcomers". Meaning it's a way to ease black fears that they're being pushed out by whites. Not a way to get DCPS teachers to live in DC (they all choose to live in MD anyway it seems).

by Alex on Jan 6, 2009 5:21 pm

I have to say I agree with Lance on that second point (a first I think.) As for Lance's other point, I too question the need to include "workforce housing" in this project. Didn't Price of Petworth just have a 'good deal or not' in that area for under 200k?

You have to remember that the project won't be fully completed until around 2013-2015. The market for that area will change over time.

by Paul S on Jan 6, 2009 6:01 pm

I too agree with Lance's first point. These workers should not have to rely on charity.

IMGoph, you make a good point, in which case I don't know how it helps seniors.

by David C on Jan 6, 2009 6:19 pm

Not all seniors own their homes. Those who've rented all their lives don't get the same protection.

by David Alpert on Jan 6, 2009 7:33 pm

"New affordable housing we create in DC goes to people like police officers, teachers, and the many other people with good, important, but not high-paying jobs."

When someone attempts to sell people on affordable housing for people like teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. they're trying to snow you. I don't know about teachers or firefighters, but MPD recruits pull down $48,000 in the academy and sworn officers outside of the probationary period pull about $53,000 plus overtime (time and a half is approximately $35/hr for rookies) and part time(whatever is negotiated less fees to the city. If you're willing to work overtime, you can do very well in MPD. Moreover, something like 70% of the force lives in Maryland for various reasons, including the fact that General Orders state that you are always on duty in DC and have to carry a weapon outside of a few exceptions in the district, and the fact that many officers don't want to get into a situation where they may have the off chance of running into people they lock up off duty.

Also, HUD's Good Neighbor Next Door will knock off something like 50% of the list price of a home if bought in a revitalization area. So unless the 'affordable housing" is in a revitalization area or qualifies for a HUD loan, then they probably won't buy unless they want to shell out the money.

So moral of the story: MPD makes too much money to qualify for affordable housing in DC and in general most officers don't want to live in DC for a number of perfectly good reasons.

by Boomhauer on Jan 6, 2009 9:29 pm

Having walked the site, it's not the type of green or open space I think most people expect upon looking at it from the street. (Flickr set, from about 2 years ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sophiagrrl/sets/72157594306042220/)

All the grass is just a thin layer on top of a 25 acre series of un-reinforced concrete vaults approx 15 feet deep. The floor of the vaults are filled with sand (the filter agent) of unknown depth in some places and under the sand is a network of pipes to retrieve the filtered water. Throughout the 25 acres are manhole covers designed to let in light for the workers - these were never safe to walk on and there are about 5,000 of them in that 'green space.' As we walked it, others on the tour actually noted that they were surprised the developer hadn't taken more precautions to make it safe for us.. and the tour guide sort of acknowledged that this is exactly the trouble with saving anything outside of the tower space as open space. It's a huge filter - not a field.

All the infrastructure has to be dealt with in order to build anything or to be safe. When I took the walking tour, the folks from the development group were pretty honest that there had never been this kind of brownfield development ever and they had no idea of the costs. There is NOTHING there for a farm, as some have suggested. In fact, the impacts of water, trees and grass have cause some collapses (you can see one along N Cap) and there are more cracks all throughout the vaults.

My take away: This is not a candidate for a park. No way, no how. The open site could be measured for a number of valid ecological services and these should be quantified and addressed. The concerns that Bloomingdale neighbors have about increased run off and flooding are valid, since the site does currently handle a lot of water. Is it habitat for anything other than nuisance geese? If we can measure that, then perhaps the new development could be designed to address these losses. But for frisbees and dogs and kids: no way.

This doesn't touch the whole affordable housing misunderstanding. I suspect Mr. Kirk would be astounded to learn that he might not be able to afford 'affordable' as defined in DC. I can't put my finger on the formula right now, but I'm sure a reader here knows it. To be affordable, it should be in the range of a person making 110% (??) of the MEDIAN local income - which in DC is high because of the very wealthy local jurisdictions. He'd be better off ceasing his worries about affordable housing attracting criminals and more worried that even with the 300 affordable units, this will be out of reach of most of the people who have called Bloomingdale home for generations.

by Sophiagrrl on Jan 6, 2009 10:12 pm

I am not against the idea of creating more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Nor am I against ANY form of development. Bloomingdale and the Washington Hospital Center (including Childrens/Wash Hosp Center/VA Medical Ctr//Na'l Rehab Ctr) are already in the worst category of traffic congestion in the city. This will increase the number of people living here, the number of people working here, the number of delivery trucks, police cruisers and the number of people driving in to enjoy the next fried chicken joint and the new Murrays. For anyone to suggest this 1 billion development project will result in less traffic defies logic.

Most damning is the project's complete lack of vision. Why not include the reservoir in the plan? Why not look at how to connect this to the Armed Forces property? Since the city politicians have taken campaign contributions from these developers they are content to allow the developer to cash in with eight story buildings while throwing scraps to the neighborhood like the little dog park and the amphitheater. By the way, what neighbors were clamoring for an amphitheater? Such a beautiful place for an amphitheater, bordered by First Street, six car lengths from the inner street and overlooked by eight-story high office buildings. Set your amps on 11, boys!! I guess the developer didn't spend very much money on designers/architects. But, what do they care, they are from Bethesda.

by PaulKirk on Jan 6, 2009 11:17 pm

To make this site a useful farm, how much topsoil and fertilizer would have to be trucked in? If it is mostly concrete vaults filled with sand as described above, it would have little use for growing crops.

by Steve on Jan 7, 2009 12:54 am

On the farm - regardless of the logistics of amount of soil, there is no financial model for the cost of remediation (removal of all those tons of concrete and sand and pipes) where a farm would compete. Even if fully subsidized with the richest cash crop possible, farms don't make money like residential units. Also, the remediation standards for growing crops is probably higher than for putting in commercial/retail/residential.

Farm is a non-starter. I'm an advocate for more urban farming but this site is, again, an industrial infrastructure remnant from a century ago. It has grass on it and we mistake that for green space, but really, any open parking lot you see is more 'green' space than this site. We could sooner turn the former convention center site into a central park/farm. In fact, that isn't such a bad idea. :)

by Sophiagrrl on Jan 7, 2009 7:52 am

In regards to greening, global warming, and what does and does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I seriously suggest folks look elsewhere.

by Fred on Jan 7, 2009 7:57 am

I am glad to see so many great ideas, but there also seems to be a great deal of misinformation floating around about the level of subsidy from the city (zero) and the total amount of open and green space (10 acres is the current proposal). Finally, please know that none of the plans have been finalized and there is still ample opportunity for public review and comment. We're working to get the plan on line so that it may be viewed and talked about by people who were unable to make the last public meeting. When it's up I will make sure the surrounding neighborhood lists and commenting blogs have the URL.

by Tania Jackson on Jan 7, 2009 1:49 pm

Tania, you and EYA didn't buy this property from the taxpayers. We own it. If there was an auction for this 25 acre property and you and EYA purchased it for something like the market price, which would be more than $1 billion, then you could say there is no subsidy. Not only are you getting this for free, the city will have to BORROW tens (hundreds?) of millions in bonds to pay for the water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, etc. So, for example, instead of the city spending money to simply fix everything that is broken - stormwater system, schools, police, fixing alleys properly with bricks instead of spreading temporary asphalt, etc., the city will be spending money on more infrastructure so that you and EYA can make a profit. So, you are getting the property, then we'll pay higher taxes when the city makes bond payments and EYA will be counting their money in Bethesda while Bloomingdale residents wonder whether the car traveling at high speeds down First Street is going to stop at the yellow light at First and W.

by PaulKirk on Jan 7, 2009 2:55 pm

Paul, I don't know where exactly you live, but I can just about guarantee you that whatever edifice it is, someone developed it for a profit at some point. Even if it was a home built by the original owner, the land it sits on was sold for a profit. Capitalism is the norm, not the exception.

Likewise, I'll bet your sewer pipes, water mains, streets and sidewalks were all paid for by city spending in one form or another.

Even taking all of your allegations at face value (which is a major stretch, your allegations are mostly ridiculous), nothing of what you are saying is fundamentally different or wrong from how American cities have developed for generations.

by Alex B. on Jan 7, 2009 3:08 pm

>> "Tania, you and EYA didn't buy this property from the taxpayers. We own it. If there was an auction for this 25 acre property and you and EYA purchased it for something like the market price, which would be more than $1 billion, then you could say there is no subsidy."

You are clearly out of touch with financial reality and don't grasp how Economic Development happens.

by Jason on Jan 7, 2009 3:12 pm

All economic value derives from the land and its proximity to the center of the nation's capital. This is publicly owned land. In fact, we DC taxpayers have, through the years, been paying to have the grass mown, trees pruned, litter removed, etc. Economic Development takes many forms. We've owned this property and we've been paying to take care of it. If valuable public property is the source of considerable profits for an out-of-town developer, how can you say there is no subsidy? Why were they pre-selected BEFORE we saw what the final plan would be? Why didn't they include the reservoir or fixed rail in their planning? Who the heck in my neighborhood is clamoring for an amphitheater?

by PaulKirk on Jan 7, 2009 4:18 pm

i would like mr. kirk to give me one scrap of information that would lead anyone to believe that the retail at this location would consist mostly of "fried chicken joints" and a murry's grocery store. i'm going to come out and say what i think his commentary skirts on the edge of—that's race.

the plain and simple fact is that the images he paints with his concerns are that this retail would be built to appeal to and service people from the lowest income brackets in DC, who are mostly african-american. look at the current location of murry's stores. there are 5 locations in DC (south capitol street and alabama ave. in ward 8, minnesota ave. in ward 7, h street north of capitol hill, and georgia ave. in park view) and those are all in predominantly in african-american neighborhoods with below city average income.

there is nothing wrong with retail that targets people with lower amounts of disposable income (though i would argue that everyone, regardless of income, deserves better quality groceries than frozen dinners). but it's evidently clear that this development will not aim for that demographic. right or wrong, there will not be a murry's located here.

what i question is why mr. kirk insists on using that as an example of what he thinks we should expect will be built here. are we supposed to fear the construction of such a place? if so, why? is it because of the clientele that it would bring? and if that's the case, why should we fear those people?

i don't expect a direct answer—i expect obfuscation. i apologize for rambling, and if i've opened an inappropriate line of questioning, then by all means bring my part of this thread to an end. but i would honestly like to know why mr. kirk chose the curious examples that he did.

by IMGoph on Jan 7, 2009 4:25 pm

I will respond after IMGOPH apologizes for playing the race card. While the rest of the country looks confidently to the future as racial barriers continue to fade away, some will stoop to play the race card when their other arguments run out. In fact, if you are any sort of man with pride, I will be at the Starbucks at Howard at noon tomorrow where you can apologize in person, or we'll have to settle this another way. I take great offense, sir.

by paulandrewkirk on Jan 7, 2009 4:35 pm

I see two patterns developing here. Those that know the developers are from Bethesda, possibly their experience with DC is so limited that they will not adequately search out development opportunities that serve our community and want to make as much money as possible.

The other pattern is that the developers will stick us with whatever retail store wants to set up shop on the site. The areas high incomes, education levels and density will support so much more than a Murray"s or Family Dollar. That should not happen unless these developers from Bethesda don't want to dig and get real deals. They will have to take the time to learn and understand the neighborhoods surrounding the project, find exsiting local operators that have a good product and entice them to the development. The grocery store should come first and I think that we rate any of the top 5 grocery stores in the area. Will EYA and Street Sence do the digging...I wonder?

by Carla on Jan 7, 2009 5:09 pm

From the perspective of a Bloomingdale resident:

The current proposal is ridiculous in several ways. First, just who is expected to frequent the 7-8 restaurants and the other commercial sites in the northern, Barracks Row-like section, as described by EYA at the Dec. 13 presentation? Bloomingdale has not seen fit to support even one sit-down restaurant; that is, market researchers over the years have looked at our demographics and reported back to their clients, and those restaurateurs, grocers, etc. have stayed away in droves. Now we are to believe there is a market for 7-8 restaurants -- all clustered in the same place? Much is made by EYA and others of the hallowed "community" -- that the project will be friendly to the community and will result from community feedback. But in a very important sense, which we ignore at our peril, there ain't no community for the project as now drawn up. What or who is on the northern side of Michigan Ave. and will patronize the commercial development? The VA hospital? All the other hospitals? La Petite Academy?! Those are self-contained communities. The employees need to stay close to their jobs and on-site cafeterias serve their needs for precisely that reason. Are 90-year-old WWII vets, or 65-year-old Vietnam vets, going to amble out of the VA for an espresso and a Gap T-shirt? Not bloody likely. Is this shortcoming to be cured by 1,200 new residential units, 25% of which will be for low-income or working-class people? That's not enough, and if more new housing is "needed," then maybe the cure is worse than the "disease," whatever that might be.

Do people -- city decisionmakers and Bloomingdale residents, most pointedly -- realize just how much development is going on nearby? The Armed Forces Retirement Home has been cleared for 4.5 million sq. ft. of development. That's almost a Pentagon's worth of offices, restaurants, groceries, shops, etc. In NoMa, there's a projected total of 16 million sq. ft. of the same in the next few years -- nearly 3 times the size of the Pentagon. Really, can Bloomingdale not make do with all that as its development? I quite like the idea of using those areas for my commercial needs (Harris Teeter coming to NoMa, among other things) but living in the relative quiet of Bloomingdale much as it is now, with the McMillan site more park-like than built-up-like.

About that...the "open" and "green" space envisioned now is a joke. Maybe I've spent too much time in the "big sky" of Montana and Wyoming, but 3+ acres surrounded on all sides by buildings at least 4 stories high is not open, green space. At best it's a courtyard; at worst, somebody's back or front yard. What it really is is space between buildings that's just a little bigger than it absolutely has to be. And the other "open" space? It's not even green -- it's a brick walkway, or promenade if you want to be more polite.

Has anyone really looked at the lay of the land? N. Capitol St. falls away from the McMillan site as you go south, such that by the time you reach Channing St., the site is a good 20 or even 25 feet above N. Cap. That's where "mere" 4-story rowhomes will be built. But it's going to have the visual effect of a city, or "superblock," as some call it, floating in the air. Quite apart from anything EYA or any other developer could design, we're dealing with a promontory from the get-go. Ever seen Prague Castle or Edinburgh Castle? That's what even the most modest development will look like from N. Cap. St.

All that said, I'm quick to acknowledge that simply calling the McMillan site a park, or making it into one, is highly problematic, and maybe not even desirable. Who's kidding who? The place now is an eyesore (you heard it here first). I wonder if we, or the city, or whoever, didn't actually screw ourselves with the @1985 historic designation of the place? We're limited both ways: What we can do in the name of development and what we can do in the name of creating and landscaping a park. Am I the only one who thinks tall, sleek, gleaming, new condos and commercial space side-by-side with old, crumbling brick silos (even if they are covered with ivy) looks ridiculous? If we "must" have development, we have to shoehorn it in among the abandoned, 100-year-old buildings of a public utility? Again, maybe the "cure" for the lack of a Trader Joe's and $4 coffees isn't one at all.

Enough for now. I'm interested to see reactions.

by Tim Breen on Jan 7, 2009 5:16 pm

You got it, Tim. The current plan is high on profits and squandors the opportunity to design, from scratch, a 25 acre site that overlooks the reservoir and the city. At the community meeting I attended, folks with houses on the west side of North Capitol were concerned about losing their view of sunsets. Those eight-story office buildings will result in some of those folks having to look straight up to see the sky, and you can forget seeing the sky from your first floor windows. Anyone interested in fighting this development, including full use of Federal environmental laws, please leave your e-mail at NoDrillingAtMcMillan.blogspot.com.

by PaulKirk on Jan 7, 2009 5:30 pm

Again, I would suggest that for an accurate, informed discussion on the environmental impact a project like this might have, do research outside of this blog. Also for what constitutes green building, what does and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

by Fred on Jan 7, 2009 7:20 pm

On his blog I've asked Mr. Kirk before and will, again here , to contact me himself. My email address is tbj@jairlynch.com, and all of my phone contact information can be found on our website. I didn't get a reply-- just repetition here of the several inaccuracies on his blog that need to be corrected because they very misleading (1,000 units of low income housing, this repeated diatribe about check cashing places and chicken joints . . . I have no idea where he's getting this information). As his blog has no contact information I have no way of addressing him individually.

The assertion about "free" land is simply untrue. Much of this was addressed at the last public meeting and I am happy to revisit it. The development team has to pay fair market value for the land. Land cost is based on what you can develop on it.

Further, the infrastructure for the site is NOT being paid for by city bond. The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development has been very clear about this and it's another issue that was clearly addressed at the meeting. A major part of this development process includes understanding that the infrastructure required costs about $60M. The development that occurs has to support paying for that infrastructure; this is not money that the city will come up with-- it's the job of the developers to do so.

That was meeting Number ONE, where we literally asked people to draw & list their desires. We compiled them and started working with the McMillan Advisory Group and compiled a draft plan, which was presented at the last meeting and was clearly expressed as anything BUT the final version. Meeting NUMBER TWO, which was recently held, presented the draft plan.

We will continue to solicit input and work with the MAG and the surrounding neighborhoods to develop a site that respects the unique history and beauty of the site and also amplifies its unique setting. The last generation to enjoy access to the site was my grandparents'.

I'm hopeful that people who are interested will continue to participate in this process.

by Tania Jackson on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 pm

ms. jackson: thank you so much for helping to set the record straight. i attended both of the meetings at trinity university, and i remember how we were given the chance to have input in exactly the way you recall it above.

please note that there is a strong contingent in the neighborhood that is happy to see this land being put to productive use. there are a lot of people who do not wish to see the status quo change as well, but i believe you are heading down the right path. there are a lot of things in your plan that i would like to see change, but it appears that your group is open to discussion...

by IMGoph on Jan 8, 2009 1:51 pm

Thank you, Tania for skipping the 'behind-closed-doors' tactics and airing your opinions for public scrutiny.

Let's take your points one at a time:

"... just repetition here of the several inaccuracies on his blog that need to be corrected because they very misleading (1,000 units of low income housing,"

Has the developer said yet how many units of low-income housing will be the final number? How can I be wrong if no final number has been shared with us? The only thing we have in writing from the Bethesda developer is this: "1,000 –1,200 units of mixed-income and multi-generational housing" Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it will only be 800 or 900 units of additional low-income housing units suddenly added to the Bloomingdale neighborhood. Whatever the number, it is in the hundreds and, for the first time, we will have encircled Bloomingdale with low-income housing projects.

" ...this repeated diatribe about check cashing places and chicken joints . . . I have no idea where he's getting this information)."

Tania, are you suggesting that all retail space will be dictated by the developer? Many have pointed to marketing studies and other signs that the cornucopia of high-end retailers the developer is dangling as the main benefit for the neighborhood is a complete fantasy. I know we are at a disadvantage in discussing with you which retail companies make sense. You are the expert, which is why YOUR list includes Cluck U Chicken, but your list also includes Harris Teeter and Trader Joe's. What level of commitment do you have from them before you list them first and second on your list? f they did decide to locate at the corner of Michigan and North Capitol I guess it would become known as the Traffic Jam Trader Joes?

"The assertion about "free" land is simply untrue. Much of this was addressed at the last public meeting and I am happy to revisit it. The development team has to pay fair market value for the land. Land cost is based on what you can develop on it."

Tania, we're not stupid. You get fair market value when you hold an auction. In your VERY next sentence, you say "Land cost is based on what you can develop on it." There was no auction. No real competition. NCRC hacks set this all up and the city is playing it out. Since all value is derived from this unique 25 acre plot of land and its proximity to the nation's capital, the developer will make a profit that is negotiated.

Again, all profits derive from this publicly-held land. It is my understanding that the $60 mil figure would not come close to covering all of the infrastructure needed. Is the developer going to set up a contingency fund?

Finally, I was at the same meeting where N. Cap residents expressed concerns about their view. And where Channing Street residents expressed their desire to have housing that looks like theirs across the street from them. And where Bloomingdale, Eckington, Brookland, Stronghold and Park View residents expressed the desire for small scale local retail. And where people expressed the desire for appropriate venues for seniors to age in place, affordably. And where residents expressed the desire for public and open space, programmed for a variety of uses.

That was meeting Number ONE, where we literally asked people to draw & list their desires. We compiled them and started working with the McMillan Advisory Group and compiled a draft plan, which was presented at the last meeting and was clearly expressed as anything BUT the final version. Meeting NUMBER TWO, which was recently held, presented the draft plan.

We will continue to solicit input and work with the MAG and the surrounding neighborhoods to develop a site that respects the unique history and beauty of the site and also amplifies its unique setting. The last generation to enjoy access to the site was my grandparents'.

What a beautiful site it was. As many already know, the Howard University official song mentions the "Lake":

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Reared against the eastern sky

Proudly there on hilltop high,

Far above the lake so blue

Stands old Howard firm and true.

There she stands for truth and right,

Sending forth her rays of light,

Clad in robes of majesty;

O Howard, we sing of thee.

Be thou still our guide and stay

Leading us from day to day;

Make us true and leal and strong,

Ever bold to battle wrong.

When from thee we’ve gone away,

May we strive for thee each day

As we sail life’s rugged sea,

O Howard, we’ll sing of thee.

Instead of being focused on maximizing square footage, it is too bad the Bethesda developer in charge has simply foregone any attempt to re-join the McMillan property with the lake. Imagine what a beautiful running/biking trail could be created. The developer has ignored this neighborhood's input, including the absence of any fixed rail, building eight-story high office buildings and shaving off scraps of "open space" with no real usable park space. I was at the first community meeting. I stood up to ask a question and was told there would be no questions so I sat back down and listened to 18 or so people introduce themselves. Then when we broke into the workgroups, that conversation was agressively managed by the EYA guy. These meetings allow you to check the box, but nothing has been done with respect to the main concerns raised. After this experience, I (and many others) skipped the 2nd meeting. Why give this process the appearance of community input?

Despite all the neighbors' input, North Capitol Street residents will lose their sunset views. Channing Street folks will lose views, parking spaces, and the neighborhood feel we now enjoy when we walk our dogs. All of Bloomingdale will suffer from the developer's vision to make First Street look like North Capitol Street. And, while the developer is counting his money in Bethesda, we will be stuck with the mess they left us here.

I'm hopeful that people who are interested will continue to participate in this process.

by Tania Jackson on Jan 8, 2009 12:46 pm

Having heard from so many neighbors who are against this development plan, I am hopeful that the powers inherent in a democracy will prevail and we will be able to fight having this Bethesda plan shoved down our throats.

by paulandrewkirk on Jan 8, 2009 5:16 pm

Then when we broke into the workgroups, that conversation was agressively managed by the EYA guy. These meetings allow you to check the box, but nothing has been done with respect to the main concerns raised.

either you're lying, paul, or you were at the only table where this happened. the EYA person at our table started us off, but our table was basically run by two long-time residents in their 70s or 80s who dictated to the rest of us what they'd basically like to see at the site. we were able to slowly get other opinions in, but out of respect, we let them run the show.

sorry to hear that you've been so damaged by this process. i think it's a shame that you continue to experience so much hurt over a redevelopment plan.

by IMGoph on Jan 8, 2009 5:27 pm

Nice. Now I'm a liar and a racist. I guess while sitting at one table your spirit floated around all the other tables giving you omniscient powers at the community meeting. Didn't see you at the Starbucks today. Look forward to meeting you face to face.

by paulandrewkirk on Jan 8, 2009 5:41 pm

Has the developer said yet how many units of low-income housing will be the final number? How can I be wrong if no final number has been shared with us? The only thing we have in writing from the Bethesda developer is this: "1,000 –1,200 units of mixed-income and multi-generational housing" Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it will only be 800 or 900 units of additional low-income housing units suddenly added to the Bloomingdale neighborhood. Whatever the number, it is in the hundreds and, for the first time, we will have encircled Bloomingdale with low-income housing projects.

Mr Kirk, if you were interested in trying to understand how these projects worked rather than purely sensationalizing misinformation and fearmongering you'd know these partnership projects with DMPED call for ~20% affordable housing. Not the 75% or 100% you try to spin it as.

Do you even realize how conflicting your talking points are? One paragraph it's developers only care about profits and in another paragraph it's suggesting the near entirety of the project will be low-income housing. That makes no sense.

by Paul S on Jan 8, 2009 5:46 pm

paul,

in my opinion you have now twice crossed the line of civility and have become threatening to IMGoph in a public forum. if you want to dimiss every argument that counters yours, fine. but calling folks out to a high noon style showdown is truly beyond acceptable.

and please, don't infer that i'm calling you a cowboy or a western marshal because i used the cliché "high noon."

by jaime on Jan 8, 2009 5:56 pm

Who the hell has a fight at Starbucks?That's some straight up gangsta $h!t right there, yo. At least somebody's keepin it ghetto. Mad props, chalk child.

by monkeyrotica on Jan 8, 2009 8:17 pm

I don't see threats. I see bluster. And I didn't catch anyone being called a racist.

But much more important than these things is - what is wrong with Cluck U chicken?????

by Jazzy on Jan 8, 2009 8:23 pm

Exactly! Cluck U on H was one of the few places that still served fried chicken gizzards AND livers. Now, I like forcemeat and fois gras like any hiptard, but sometimes you just want organs battered and fried in fat and you don't want some snooty sumbitch looking down his nose at you because you opted for Mountain Dew instead of pinot grigio. And Cluck U is locally owned! Who's standing up for local entrepreneurs?

by monkeyrotica on Jan 8, 2009 8:45 pm

As for when IMGoph played the race card, it was here on this page:

"i'm going to come out and say what i think his commentary skirts on the edge of—that's race."

by IMGoph on Jan 7, 2009 4:25 pm

I didn't hear anyone threatening anyone, or anything about a fight at the Starbucks. I just wanted to invite Mr. IMGoph to say these things to my face. I doubt he would.

As for Paul S's assertion that the developer will not make money on low-income housing that is provided, that is rubbish. It's just more taxpayer money that will end up accruing, one way or the other, to the Bethesda-based developer. It is not as profitable as the eight-story high sun-blocking office buildings, but they will be paid for all development, from the pockets of other corporations and from DC taxpayers and possibly Federal taxpayers as well.

by paulandrewkirk on Jan 8, 2009 11:08 pm

Clearly I misinterpreted "if you are any sort of man with pride, I will be at the Starbucks at Howard at noon tomorrow where you can apologize in person, or we'll have to settle this another way" as somehow belligerent. My apologies.

by monkeyrotica on Jan 9, 2009 6:43 am

What about my request for a face to face? Or an email to email? Or a phone call?

I would love to meet you at the Howard Starbucks. Or by the "lake so blue".

Tania Jackson

by Tania Jackson on Jan 9, 2009 4:20 pm

Paul - It seems like you should calm down and not make your posts so personal. It kind of dilutes your argument.

by Nolan on Jan 10, 2009 1:45 pm