Poplar Point and the Case of the Too-Large Park

Public Spaces

Poplar Point and the Case of the Too-Large Park

by Cavan Wilk • February 4, 2009 3:27 pm

The District has been fortunate to receive a "once in a lifetime" gift from the federal government to build a whole new neighborhood on empty, unused land. Poplar Point lies just across the Anacostia River from the Nationals ballpark and a ten minute walk from the Anacostia Metro. A successful Poplar Point development, possibly with a soccer stadium for DC United, would create a mixed-use neighborhood and regional attraction in Ward 8, ending its long stint as the forgotten part of the region. If developed according to DC's current criteria, it will also contain too much contiguous parkland. That's right, too much.

Clark Realty's winning proposal with mega-park. Image by stirlingr on Flickr.

The original RFP from the Mayor's Office required all proposals to contain extremely generous amounts of "open space." The winning proposal, submitted by Clark Realty of Bethesda, contained a 70 acre park out of 110 total acres on the whole site. That's large by any measure. In contrast, Dupont Circle's park is under one acre. It is also one of our region's most beloved urban parks. When it comes to urban parks, bigger is clearly not necessarily better.

Now that Clark Realty pulled out of the project, citing economic concerns, the Mayor's Office must go back to the drawing board and re-solicit bids. They should focus on proposals that better integrate small parks into the neighborhood urban fabric. Well-designed parkland would create a sense of place and interact with its surroundings.

The current "open space" at Poplar Point is in a state of disrepair and is underused as a park. There's as much seedy activity there as there is walking, socializing, or recreational sports. Part of the reason is the Anacostia Freeway, which separates Poplar Point from its surroundings. Another reason is that it is too big to have enough "eyes on the street" to discourage undesirable activities. Any 70 acre super-park is very unlikely to have enough "eyes on the street" to dissuade seedy activity.

In her classic book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs wrote,

In orthodox [modernist] city planning, neighborhood open spaces are venerated in an amazingly uncritical fashion, much as savages venerate magical fetishes [sic]. Ask a houser how his planned neighborhood improves on the old city and he will cite, as a self-evident virtue, More Open Space. Ask a zoner about the improvements in progressive codes and he will cite, again as a self-evident virtue, their incentives toward leaving More Open Space. Walk with a planner through a dispirited neighborhood and though it be already scabby with deserted parks and tired landscaping festooned with an old Kleenex, he will envision a future of More Open Space.
More Open Space for what? For muggings? For bleak vacuums between buildings? Or for ordinary people to use and enjoy? But people do not use city open space just because it is there and because city planners wish they would.

An urban park is not the same as a suburban park, or a wilderness nature preserve park. No one drives for miles to visit Dupont Circle or McPherson Square. No one would drive for miles to visit a park in any new Poplar Point development. The park is there for the people in the immediate walking area. That is the beauty of DC's existing small neighborhood parks. They contain nice benches with a nice centerpiece. Their design facilitates human social activities. They interact with their surroundings, rather than overshadow them. They are centers of place. In the L'Enfant City, they anchor beautiful sightlines along the diagonal state avenues. People use them to eat lunch on a nice day, read a book, use their laptop or iPhone, meet with a friend, or relax on an enjoyable date.

Parks like Dupont Circle and McPherson Square are the right size to enhance their surroundings. On the other hand, Franklin Square is much less popular because of its scale. Even though it is clearly more visually appealing, its size makes it harder to walk in, find a place to sit, and relax. It is too big to truly interact with its surroundings, yet too small to be an attraction itself. Consequently, it is neither fish nor fowl. Rather than enhancing the surrounding urban fabric like neighboring McPherson Square, it acts as a hole.

How can we avoid the failures of Franklin Square in a future Poplar Point? First, Franklin Square is 4.8 acres. Imagine if it were 70 acres. Few would venture in it. The only parks that even partially work on that scale are suburban parks. Like most of suburbia, those parks devote a large fraction of their land area to roads and parking lots. Even still, those parks often grapple with seedy activities under the cover of darkness.

Poplar Point won't have surface parking lots. A 70-acre park won't interact with an urban environment. Rather than "open space", Poplar's park will be "dead space." In fact, the term "open space" is a complete misnomer. It implies a feeling of freedom and escape. It markets suburbia and its central axiom that more is always better. In parks as with romantic relationships, quality is far more important that quantity. Quality depends on the activity surrounding the park and how the park interacts with its surroundings. I would like to see a moratorium on the term "open space" and its uglier, more misleading cousin, "green space". I once heard a very educated, well-meaning transit advocate refer to the trees on the sidewalk in Bethesda as "green space". Let's return to the time-honored term "park".

The next proposals for developing Poplar Point should split up the parkland into more, smaller parks rather than a 70 acre megapark that will be doomed to misuse and neglect. Residents will need public athletic fields. Those needn't be part of a megapark. Athletic fields can bring use and a sense of place to even a one-acre park. When mixed in within a walkable urban context, they draw users to the park at more times of the day, between office workers, residents, and local leagues. They add "eyes on the street." (Unfortunately, they also need to use field turf so they don't become dust bowls.)

Elsewhere in the Poplar Point neighborhood, mimic Dupont Circle or McPherson Square by creating small parks that act as central gathering places in busy restaurant and cultural districts. The developer will be happy to build fewer parks and more floor space they can collect rent on. The city will get more revenue from the additional taxable real estate. They will also save maintenance costs because the smaller parks will attract less vandalism. And all residents and visitors to Poplar Point can have the numerous small parks that Capitol Hill and Northwest already enjoy.

48 comments — Share	— tags: Anacostia, DC, parks, Poplar Point, public spaces

Poplar Point planners present possibilities (Jul 23, 2009)
Shaw getting new pocket park (May 21, 2009)
Big box retail at Poplar Point? (Sep 15, 2008)
Open space versus parks (May 30, 2008)
Poplar Point may get a deck over I-295 (Feb 15, 2008)

Comments

I agree. Unfortunately, there are also "parks" or "open spaces in NWDC that don't quite get it, for whatever reason. One such example would be the "plaza" at 14th/Park/Kenyon in Columbia Heights. It has the potential to be a great space, but it's still languishing, whether that results from the lack of pedestrian amenities or the mix of businesses surrounding it or whatever. Another example is Thomas Circle. It is surrounded by a wide roadbed meant to maximize auto movements and has a few scraggly trees in the middle. Fortunately for residents near Thomas Circle, Logan Circle is not far away. Unfortunately for those of us who live in Columbia Heights, there's really no equivalent of Dupont Circle in our neighborhood.

by David T on Feb 4, 2009 3:43 pm

I'm not sure I agree with your premise, as I think this park would serve a far different role than the urban squares and circles you're comparing it to. It's not a fair comparison.

On a technical aspect, I believe one condition of the transfer of this land to the District is that a large percentage remain as parkland.

Furthermore, none of your comparison parks were adjacent to the waterfront. There's a tremendous opportunity to use this park as a natural filter of stormwater before it enters the Anacostia, while also making it a usable space. Just from looking at the rendering, where the park is laced with streams, marshes, paths, and trees - rather than the formal walks and statues that you see in Dupont or McPherson tells me this was meant to be something else - something more akin to NYC's Central Park.

by Alex B. on Feb 4, 2009 3:47 pm

I disagree. Surrounded by high-density development, this park would be a great attraction and a well-designed urban "escape". Are you saying that Rock Creek Park is too large? Small parks certainly have their benefits, but large parks serve cities as well. Think Central Park, Millenium Park, etc.

Big parks are not always dead, and can be a real boon to the surrounding neighborhoods.

by DG-rad on Feb 4, 2009 3:48 pm

The size of a park isn't as important as its design.

I don't agree that Franklin Square's failure is its size. At 4.8 acres, it is much smaller than NYC's Bryant Park. Jacobs talks about the need for a variety of uses and a variety of users at different times of the day (and evening) as necessary for a successful park. Franklin Square offers no amenities or activities, and because it is surrounded by an office ghetto, is abandoned after working hours. A large park doesn't necessarily have to fail. The parks of London are proof of that.

I do agree with the need of any park in Poplar Point to be integrated with the neighborhood. The buildings along the edge need to interact with the park. Once inside the park, there need to be concessions and activities along a broad, well lit path with good sight lines.

by DMIJohn on Feb 4, 2009 3:49 pm

I would also add that the other competing proposals all had their parkland spread out, and Clark's plan blew them out of the water. A big park is not bad at all, certainly not just for being big.

by Alex B. on Feb 4, 2009 3:52 pm

Just an editorial question, why the [sic] in the Jacobs quote?

by Steve on Feb 4, 2009 4:12 pm

Alex B.,

There will be nothing natural about this park. A park is as developed as a skyscraper. From an ecological perspective, there is no difference between an urban park and a building. Neither provide a habitat for anything other than birds.

It takes many square miles of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions from one mile of a road. No 70 acre park can make much difference.

Rock Creek Park is more similar to a wilderness park. It is mostly unused and by design does not engage its surroundings. It's meant to be a wilderness enclave in the city. No Poplar Point park would be designed that way.

As for Central Park in New York, keep in mind that it has enough "eyes on the street" because there are 1.6 million residents of Manhattan island. There will not be that many people in an easily accessible distance from the park. It will be used by those in walking distance. If you want enough people to keep a 70 acre park busy enough to prevent seedy activities, you need a surrounding population density similar to what's in Manhattan. As you know, DC has that height limit...

As for the waterfront, how far is the waterfront in the Baltimore Inner Harbor from the closest building? If you want to engage the waterfront, you should have the waterfront park as narrow as possible so that people don't have to walk far from the their residences to go there. A 70 acre park would act as a barrier, not a gateway.

by Cavan on Feb 4, 2009 4:12 pm

Steve, I found her word choice to be of interest as she described modernist planners' views. I put the sic there to draw interest to her word choice.

by Cavan on Feb 4, 2009 4:14 pm

I would agree with DMIJohn that you haven't correctly identified the source of Franklin Parks failings. First of all is that fact that it is dominated by the homeless. (Although I haven't been by there since the shelter closed. Is it any different?). Secondly, unlike Farragut or McPherson, Franklin is not as surrounded by office space as the other two. Yes office buildings border it, but the neighborhood directly north and east of the park does not have as much office space, and hence fewer workers to decamp to the park at lunchtime.

None of the three parks is anything but an outdoor living room for homeless people on the weekends.

Blame the NPS for disallowing any creative uses of the parks in the mold of Bryant Park (although, even with creative uses, there just aren't as many people around any of those three parks, even during a workday, as there are around Bryant Park).

by Reid on Feb 4, 2009 4:15 pm

Reid,

I mentioned Franklin Square as too big because it's too big for its context. It's too big for the surrounding environment. I argue that McPherson Square and DuPont Circle are the right size because they better match the demand for park land in their environment.

by Cavan on Feb 4, 2009 4:18 pm

Cavan, the park may not be natural wilderness, but I was using 'natural' as a contrast against the very formal spaces like Dupont Circle et al. Central Park in NYC is not natural at all, it's heavily landscaped and designed, but it has a natural feel - something the rendering of this park seems to be aiming for.

Regardless, to say it's just like Franklin Square but larger is incredibly simplistic and not all that useful. These parks would have very different designs. Design and program are very important. Simply saying the park will fail because of size is wrong.

Finally, I don't think you're doing Clark's proposal justice. The proposal did include other open space, including a Dupont Circle sized park at the footing of the new Anacostia bridge.

by Alex B. on Feb 4, 2009 4:30 pm

The use of the term "open space" completely changes the thinking about the park. In fact, "natural" and "open space" go together... in a GM ad from 1961.

Slightly cheap shot on my part aside, language counts here. A park is never natural. It is a part of a human settlement just like a road, a rail, or a building. We don't automatically assume that more buildings are automatically better because they are buldings. On the same level, we shouldn't assume that parks are better because they're bigger.

I didn't say a 70 acre park would fail purely because of its size. It would fail because it is out of the context of its surroundings. You would need many more people in the immediate area to fill that park up and prevent it from going to seed. Otherwise, it's a suburban park minus the parking lot. Suburban parks often have seedy activities after dark because they can't, by definition of suburbia, have "eyes on the street." A 70 acre park would fail because by its very nature, it can't engage the other 40 or so acres of buildings. As I said in the post, if Franklin Square is too big for its surroundings at 4.8 acres, what would it be like at 70 acres? Is there going to be more density and activities that the park can interact with in a new Poplar Point development?

All it takes is one broken window...

by Cavan on Feb 4, 2009 4:41 pm

Personally, I see no reason why this Poplar Point location should be developed at all. Leave it as part of the park system along the river...

by Froggie on Feb 4, 2009 4:42 pm

not like any of this matters anymore anyway .. but this was just the prelim plan for the layout of the site. In the public meetings there was a lot of emphasis on how to distribute the green space throughout the site. The giant central park was just one option. Others included a collection of smaller parks, linear parks, etc.

I still stand by the central park, though. Ward 8 is lacking in nice, accessible, large parks with an urban framework.

by DG-rad on Feb 4, 2009 4:44 pm

The problem with your line of thinking is that size is not the only variable here. Design and programming of the space are vitally important.

Franklin Square, with a different park program and different management, wouldn't be 'too big' for its surroundings at all. Size isn't the key factor.

Bryant Park is an example. Did it get any bigger or smaller? No. Did the surroundings change in density? No, not really. So what changed? The programming of the space.

Thus, I find your assertion that 'if 4.8 acres is bad 70 acres will be worse' to be totally unconvincing.

by Alex B. on Feb 4, 2009 4:47 pm

The park in the Clark proposal seems fine to me, particularly if faced with active surface level retail to create eyes on the park. I particularly like its idea of covering a segment of I-295.

What is the consensus here with the law suit by the various established "e" groups against any development there, in the name of preserving the existing far larger park space?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 4, 2009 4:57 pm

McPherson Square is a terrible park. The grass is always dead so dust kicks all around during the summertime and ruins your shoes.

Plus if you want to sit down, you have to kindly ask the homeless if you may use the bench as well.

by MPC on Feb 4, 2009 5:06 pm

Reid,

There has been a noticeable decline in the amount of homeless people in Franklin Square from this time last year. The NPS commitment to take care of the park gives me hope for the warmer months as well.

I was in San Fransisco recently and stayed on Union Square, similar in size to Franklin square, but it was a much better used space. It had about the same density around it (almost none, save office workers and hotel guests) yet it was a regional destination with art shows, coffee shops, and monuments in the park itself. It was far nicer than Franklin Square, to say the least.

by Alex E on Feb 4, 2009 5:13 pm

There should really be a separate post just to discuss the failings of Franklin Square. I wouldn't blame it on its scale along - I think it's great to have a large park occupying an entire block. Yes, there are many homeless folks, perhaps scaring away other uses. The surrounding businesses are mostly office clusters; they may be boring but they do add density of potential users. I can't picture any good take-out places to grab lunch nearby. It has many park benches, a decent old fountain, and dozens of grand old trees. We'll have to revisit and study further!

by Michael on Feb 4, 2009 5:52 pm

Jane Jacobs is all very well and good, but her positions on parks are extremist. My copy of Death and Life is in storage, but I seem to remember that she had unkind things to say about Central Park too. Certainly she sees no role for large parks.

I can't accept the view that large parks are doomed to failure. It's not a position that many planning/cities writers other than Jane Jacobs takes, and it's not one borne out by observation. Look at the success of the New York City Parks - not just Central Park, but also Prospect Park, and the vast areas of wildlands around Jamaica Bay and Long Island Sound. You can also see the thriving Chicago Park System and the constant demands on its beaches and fields, or the activity in London's vast heaths, or the areas of dunes that provide psychological and physical shelter for Dutch cities.

I suspect that this is because Jane Jacobs just isn't a spatial thinker. She's a sociologist at heart. She observes street life directly in front of her, and she pontificates (unwisely) about things on the scale of economies. She has trouble understanding spatial behavior and development patterns above the level of the block, and she understates the importance of less-dense areas in supporting the heavily urbanized ones. Compare her analysis with two equally unconventional contemporaries, Grady Clay and J. B. Jackson. She's also writing in the 1960s. Governments in this country are tearing up or decking over freeways, not building new ones. Cities, as a way of life, are safe; the problem now is how to make them better. (Talking of tearing up freeways, Boston added a substantial amount of unbuilt space after it removed the Central Artery.)

I'm tired of hearing about "eyes on the street" as a metric for success in every possible urban space. These parks aren't kept safe through eyes on the street. The whole point is that they're too big to be supervised by crowds of passerby and busybodies hanging out of windows. That's why you have a Parks Department. That's why you provide allotment gardens and give local residents their own stake in the ground.

No, a large park is not natural. Neither are Yosemite or the Adirondack Park, both of which were created by law. Humans designate parks, but the systems in them can be entirely natural.

These parks are a hole in a city's balance sheet. If organized for active recreation, they represent a loss of money for operating expenses; if simply left unbuilt, they mean lost tax revenue. But there's more to a thriving city - and a region - than maximizing population, or maximizing property tax returns.

I'd suggest a modification to Clark's plan: keep or expand the existing volume of open space, but make more of it natural, and make it count. Build a small portion of it out for active recreation. Include community gardens. Cluster the rest toward the river, and restore it to salt marsh. You preserve views of the water and the increased real estate values that come with them - just views of the water over wildlands. By pushing away from the river's edge, you lessen the costs in sewer lines and streets. You provide much-needed space for active recreation. Growing communities need their athletic fields; just look at the struggles to make more fields in Fairfax and Montgomery.

And you create a buffer of wild marshland between your new hard surfaced developments and the wretchedly-polluted Anacostia. Some of these control measures are required by law, anyway, and would take the form of swales and retention ponds. With some cleverness, you might even pass off some of the load that would otherwise flow to the increasingly-overwhelemed Blue Plains treatment plant, saving money in the long run. And you lower the urban heat island effect, reducing those difficult summertime air conditioning costs.

by David Ramos on Feb 4, 2009 6:01 pm

Poplar Point should be kept simple. As a destination point it should have a fish market, restuarants, and a pier. The existing park should be landscaped for public use. It should be beautifully incorporated into Anacostia.

Develop Anacostia.

by cbaker on Feb 4, 2009 7:12 pm

I agree that the park is too large for its context. It would fine to have a large meandering "escapist" park in a place where several high-density neighborhoods come together, but this site is too isolated. Something like Ballston's Quincy Park that combines a couple of fields with an active area and a very small escapist zone would be much more appropriate.

A big problem these days is that too often it's assumed that more open space is always good and more development is always bad. That is simply not true.

by BeyondDC on Feb 4, 2009 7:17 pm

A big park just needs to work well with it's bigness. A great example of a big park that works is one of my favorites: Zilker Park in Austin.

It's 350 acres large and is quite busy in certain parts (others are Wilderness by design). The trick is that it caters to a wide range of recreational uses. It has a frisbee golf course, the town lake hike/bike trail, a botanical garden, Barton Springs Pool (a must see if you ever go to Austin), etc...Big is not necessarily bad. And they charge for parking FYI.

Here:

Parks Header

Zilker Header

Zilker Botanical Garden | Austin Nature and Science Center | Canoe Rental | Hike and Bike Trails | Barton Springs Pool | "Splash" Environmental Exhibit | Umlauf Sculpture Garden and Museum | The Austin Sunshine Camp Zilker Park Playscape photo Located at 2100 Barton Springs Road, Zilker Metropolitan Park is considered "Austin's most loved park." This 351 acre park is home to a variety of recreation opportunities and special events for the individual or the whole family.

Park Improvement Project

The 42 acres of the north portion of the park (Lou Neff road) has not received major park improvements since its construction in the 1930�s. The Parks and Recreation Department has implement a multiple year improvement project to improve and maintain the turf , conserve potable water, and enhance the overall appearance of the park. These improvements will provide a durable, resilient turf that will serve to create a space that inspires visitors to play, imagine, rest and interact with nature and each other.

The 81st Annual Zilker Park Kite Festival will be held March 1st, 2009.

Enjoy a ride on the Zilker Zephyr miniature train or paddling a canoe on Town Lake. Play on the large multi-age playscape, hike and bike trails and large full-service picnic areas, 6 of which are reservable. For the swimmer, Zilker Park offers Barton Springs Pool, a natural spring-fed pool with a year-round average temperature of 68 degrees.

The sports enthusiast will enjoy the sand volleyball courts, a nine-hole Disc Golf Course, 9 Soccer Fields, 1 Rugby Field, 2 Multi-use Fields.

The park is home to the Zilker Botanical Gardens, which includes the Taniguchi Oriental Garden and the Austin Area Garden Center. The Austin Nature and Science Center which offers a wide variety of programs for children and adults, as well as, the opportunity to explore the environment with hands-on exhibits, interactive nature and science trails and live Texas wildlife. In addition, the Center hosts the "Splash" Environmental Exhibit which is an educational display about the Edwards Aquafier.

The Zilker Hillside Theatre hosts concerts ranging from Jazz to Country. Additionally, the theatre is the site of the Zilker Summer Musical and Shakespeare in the Park. Bring a blanket to site on the hillside and enjoy these events.

The Umlauf Sculpture Garden and Museum is on the south end of the park. Home of the collection of work by sculptor Charles Umlauf.

by David Cr on Feb 4, 2009 7:19 pm

Whoops overdid it on the cut and paste.

by David Cr on Feb 4, 2009 7:20 pm

"The winning proposal, submitted by Clark Realty of Bethesda, contained a 70 acre park out of 110 total acres on the whole site. That's large by any measure. In contrast, Dupont Circle's park is under one acre."

--Apples and oranges.

"No one drives for miles to visit Dupont Circle or McPherson Square."

But they do. To go to RCP.

The categorical assessments - "How can we avoid the failures of Franklin Square in a future Poplar Point?" - are, to this reader, getting out of hand!

I used to sit in Franklin Park all the time and eat lunch!

by Jazzy on Feb 4, 2009 7:22 pm

Yeah, I don't see what's such a big failure about Franklin Square, having frequently used it when I worked at 14th and L. And I would welcome a really nice big park at Poplar Point that catered to a variety of recreational uses.

by Lindemann on Feb 4, 2009 8:01 pm

There are many examples of large parks along bodies of water in big cities--Chicago's Lincoln Park comes to mind, and virtually all of this space is separated from dense urban areas by expressways or boulevards. Cleveland has functional expanses parkland uses for boats and fishing, and some parks that also add picnicing. David's notion here is simplistic--the size of the park is less important than how its functions are developed and integrated into other elements. Franklin Park as a numerous limitations other than size---the conctration of office uses and its long time colonization by the homeless among them. It's also not connected to a real mixed use area with hotels, restaurants, and the like in the same way as McPherson and Farrgut.

by Rich on Feb 4, 2009 8:19 pm

"David's notion here is simplistic"

It's Cavan's, not David's.

by Jazzy on Feb 4, 2009 9:05 pm

Why do we need another neighborhood at all now? Why can't DC concentrate on revitalizing more blighted neighborhoods, or even on the corridors that are part of the Great Streets initiative?

by Rauzia Ally on Feb 4, 2009 9:36 pm

Rauzia

Political theater. Cleaning up slums is costly and may or may not fetch the appropriate results.

But with new developments, Fentey can smile with a hard-hat at ground breaking, and then let the next administration get the problem if things don't work out.

by MPC on Feb 4, 2009 9:50 pm

David Ramos, I just read your contribution. Very nice.

by Jazzy on Feb 4, 2009 9:58 pm

"David's notion here is simplistic"

It's Cavan's, not David's.

It's still simplistic and that seesm to be a theme with this blog

by Rich on Feb 4, 2009 10:49 pm

Rich, I think it's a bit much to call my writing "simplistic.". Disagreeing is ok and that's why there's a comment section to share ideas.

I think it's fair to say that all the contributors and the editor/blogmaster tend to write nuanced thoughts that are forward looking. While you may disagree with the thesis of the post, please say why you disagree. You're not adding anything to the discussion by just calling the whole blog "simplistic".

Something that is "simplistic" tends not to attract the mostly well-thought out comments and discussion that has been a staple of Greater Greater Washington for the past year.

by Cavan on Feb 4, 2009 11:26 pm

I also agree that the proposed park by Clark Realty was too large for its context. Any way you slice it, it's written into law that we must have 70 acres of park space at this site. I would place all the building development closer to the river (keeping some park space at the river) and place the remaining required acreage of park space !within! the development itself. On Clark's renderings, the park looks out of context (to me).

If my memory is correct, MacFarlane's development plan sought to weave more park space within the development itself. It wasn't perfect, but I believe that was a step in the right direction for Poplar Point.

by otavio on Feb 4, 2009 11:28 pm

Ignored so far is the reality that canceling the Clark project leaves far more park space, as per the desire of the "e" groups.

Alas it is fenced off by the surface I-295.

I wonder, is that why efforts to cover I-295 have lagged all of these years since the "progressive" community decided to ensure that a disproportionate amount of the D.C. freeway traffic was there?

Is it that they like a park that is large and isolated?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 4, 2009 11:42 pm

As Otavio mentions, 70 acres of parkland was a required condition for all the proposals. Clark Realty elected to cluster it all the parkland the center of the site and build as densely as possible on the remainder of the site. Other proposals spread the parkland throughout the entire site more.

I liked the Clark's concept for the park allocation the best. What land it does develop it maximizes and creates active streets. On the other hand the concept from Forest City intermingled arkland more with the development. I thought the Forest City rendering resembled "towers in the park" construction. Putting green acreage around the various buildings only isolates them. That would be a suburbanesque abomination.

The Preserve park planned by Clark Realty could have had some programmed spaces that could have been engaging in ways similar to McPherson Square. But it also could have been large enough and continuous enough for joggers or roller bladers and other uses that parks like McPherson Square and Franklin Park don't offer.

by Paul S on Feb 5, 2009 1:13 am

I like Franklin Sq.! (and of course - like everything else in life, it can be improved as well as unimproved). Besides, one should not conflate Poplar and Franklin- two different types of parks altogether.

by Raoul on Feb 5, 2009 8:49 am

I agree w/ Rich that there are some "simplistic-ness" around here, but I appreciate the contributions that everyone has made and this is the type of topic that I find the most interesting. It's not all about transit, which is the specialty of this site; it's a more integrated approach. I agree that optimally, this park is too big for the space and location IMO. But given that constraint, it just means that you have to be more innovative during the design phase.

I could see a large Central Park-like park that is surrounded by all the development with the waterfront commercial destinations like fishmarkets, marina and restaurants but I actually like the Forest City idea of intermingling the park land with the development. I think if it's done carefully(w/ commercial and residential nearby along with ponds, benches, paths) it would work great b/c I think the parkland needs to be broken up b/c there's a point at which a large central park could be too big like Cavan said w/ respect to the surrounding density. Maybe the parks could all string together somewhat. Either way, I don't think a large wilderness park can work in this area if it's developed. It'll become neglected and seedy. If you can develop a good transit plan (bikes, buses/trolley) for the space, intermingling the parks is the best way to do it IMO w/ the 70 acre park stipulation.

by Vik on Feb 5, 2009 9:05 am

McPherson Square is only populated by the homeless and is frequently strewn with trash. It's hardly a place to emulate.

by MAO on Feb 5, 2009 9:30 am

McPhearson Square like Franklin Square is populated by the homeless because it's in a buisness district. If there where apartments surrounding Franklin square it would be the most attractive and gracious square in DC. There's a place for both parks in every city and this large one seems rightly placed alongside a river, especially for the environmental reasons people have mentioned.

by Thayer-D on Feb 5, 2009 12:42 pm

environmental reasons? If you want to do something good for the Anacostia River, you don't build a human landscaped park. I will repeat again: a park is not "green" or "natural." It is maintained by humans, just like a building or a road.

If you want to do something good for the Anacostia River, you return both banks to wetland status all the way up to Bladensburg, just like it was in George Washington's time. It was 20 feet deep at that time. Bladensburg was the major port in the region at that time. Restoring the wetlands means undoing RFK stadium and its parking lots, the Benning Road east of 15th St. NE (the boundary of the L'Enfant City because east of that was marsh), undo the golf course, undo the Acquatic Gardens, undo Bolling AFB and NRL, and undo Poplar Point. Those were all originally wetlands. That's also a whole heck of a lot more than 70 acres. 70 acres will not make any difference whatsoever. It's very simple: park or building. Either way, you're building and maintaining a human settlement. Except for wilderness parks, parks are no more environmentally friendly than a building.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 12:53 pm

Cavan, just because this park won't be 'natural' doesn't mean it won't be beneficial to the river and the ecosystem. There are plenty of great examples of landscaped and manmade wetlands in park settings that help filter stormwater runoff (there are several large stormwater outlets in this area, by the way).

Will it restore it to a natural state? No, of course not. But then again, such a goal is impossible to meet. Can it substantially improve the current situation? Without question.

by Alex B. on Feb 5, 2009 1:20 pm

" Except for wilderness parks, parks are no more environmentally friendly than a building."

I wish I had the time now to respond to this, but alas I don't. I will just say that this to my way of thinking is not correct, in many ways. Right off the top of my head - green space absorbs heat and water. There are many birds, like hawks, that go into parks (and yes, into apartment buildings in NYC too). There can be community gardens in parks. Go into any garden during the height of summer, it is or feels 3-5 degrees less hot.

by Jazzy on Feb 5, 2009 1:22 pm

Assuming that's the plan they're going with, there's plenty of room to allow parts of the edge to revert to their natural wetland status. The whole park dosen't have to be manicured and I'd submitt that the long-grass at the edge of many a coastline along the eastern shore is more beautiful than a lot of man made hardscape.

But more to the point, which is that it dosen't always have to be a zero sum argument. A few wetland-like edges along the Potomac or Anacostia would make some difference like some people living in Downtown make some difference in that human ecosystem. I wouldn't get my dander up over a proposal for some natural edging along a waterway when so much else is underused, crapped on, or just plain ugly.

By the way, Rock Creek Park is not maintained by humans and is therefore natural. Should we rename it because it's trees arn't planted in rows? And it is more environmentaly friendly than a building. If you can draw a distinct line between a wilderness park and Franklin Park, go ahead, all I'm saying is that's wasted energy with so much else to do.

by Thayer-D on Feb 5, 2009 1:28 pm

I just saw a rendering of the former Clark proposal, and I noticed that their park configuration is pretty well arranged to maximize value. The park isn't really central. It's more on the edge of the site, creating a large bay of unbuilt space. This way, Clark brings river views and light deep into the site, producing three times as much water-view property as they would get if they had made the edge straight.

This is a single-loaded street up against a park. It's a way to raise property values in speculative development, and method for creating places that attract people. Single-loading is the condition that makes Park Ave. in New York and Michigan Ave. across from Lincoln Park, what they are.

Constructed wetlands help with the extra runoff that new development produces. They can even help with sewage treatment - remember that Blue Plains is nearing capacity. And every bit of marsh absorbs water, reducing flooding problems elsewhere during storm surges.

One (extremely large) example of a constructed wetland is in Arcata, Calif., where a marsh is supplementing the capacity of the municipal wastewater treatment plant. Not just filtering runoff, but sewage.

http://www.cityofarcata.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=47

by David Ramos on Feb 5, 2009 1:58 pm

And right on cue, Cavan is willing to scrap development along the SE corridor, which caters mainly to poors and minorities, just to achieve his radical environmental vision. People be damned!

by MPC on Feb 5, 2009 2:07 pm

MPC, huh? The other comments that disagree with my post make sense and I see their view. Your comment does not seem to have anything to do with my post. I wrote there should be less parkland in the development in favor of more small parks. I talked about restoring the Anacostia banks to marshes in a previous comment to illustrate a point about environmental impacts of land uses. I don't really see that as feasible for even desirable at this point in time.

by Cavan on Feb 5, 2009 3:00 pm

A point that hasn't been brought up is that the size of a park largely determines the activities people can or want to do there. Small parks like Dupont Circle are great for people watching, (Jane Jacobs' true avocation,) eating lunch, walking a dog, or reading a book. Medium parks can host playing fields for various sports, usually higher density activities like ~~baseball~~ kickball, basketball or soccer. But neither of these sizes is good for jogging, biking, rollerblading, taking a long walk, and so on. In DC, running or riding means stopping for every light. It's not pleasant recreation. So, if we want to support these activities, there's a place for a larger park as well as small to medium ones.

A proper trail system along the east side of the Anacostia might fill this need. But I still think there's something nice about retreating to the middle of a big park until you can barely hear the traffic and opening up a book.

by SWDCBlogger on Feb 5, 2009 6:01 pm