What's "passive green space"?

Public Spaces

by David Alpert • March 3, 2009 11:30 am

The DC Council's Committee of the Whole approved the Brookland Small Area Plan this morning. Technically, they just placed a resolution on the calendar to approve the plan, with some comments; the full Council will vote on the plan later today. However, after this vote, final passage is overwhelmingly likely. Update: The plan passed unanimously.

Is this "passive green space"? Flickr photo by FredoAlvarez.

Chairman Vincent Gray emphasized that the Council doesn't have the power to amend plans. Instead, they can only approve or reject them. However, they often include their comments in the committee report. Chairman Vincent Gray and Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. added a few such comments. None of them force changes for the plan, but rather clarify some neighborhood concerns and ask the Office of Planning to further work with the community on key issues.

One emphasizes that any future development under this plan will still have to go through the PUD process. In a PUD, the Zoning Commission reviews all aspects of a design, and arranges for certain community benefits such as funding for local nonprofits or space in the building for community uses. This plan doesn't create any by-right development, but creates a "framework" for the Zoning Commission to evaluate future PUDs.

Some neighbors want shorter buildings around the Metro station than the plan recommends. Those people have a harder road to oppose such development, because the plan guides the Zoning Commission toward taller buildings in those areas. But at the same time, the plan also calls for stepped-down heights nearer residential development, which will guide the Zoning Commission away from taller buildings in other areas. And either way, neighbors and the ANC will have plenty of future opportunities to weigh in on specific development proposals.

Another amendment to the committee report calls for OP and DDOT to update the area's transportation study by the end of 2010. The report asks OP to better clarify how to consolidate shuttle buses, which currently travel to Catholic, the Washington Hospital Center, and other locations. Shuttles could run more often and serve more people if they combined destinations, and with a lower volume of buses, we could transform the large traffic oval at the station into a public plaza and a real street grid.

Finally, Thomas introduced an amendment asking OP to study the possibility of purchasing the vacant lot adjacent to the Metro station, which some have started callind the "Brookland Common," as "passive green space." This amendment, like the others, doesn't require the city to purchase this property. Doing so would almost certainly be cost prohibitive, especially given DC's current dire budget constraints.

It's too bad that Thomas used the term "passive green space," however. Setting aside the question of whether the lot is really green or brown, "passive" space isn't useful. It's just empty space that makes a neighborhood more spread out. If it's "passive", people aren't really taking advantage of the space. If we're going to create a useful park, with benches, ball fields and a dog area, that's one thing, though the neighborhood already has several of those. But "passively" leaving land unused isn't right for a city, especially right next to a Metro station.

People whose houses or apartments overlook empty space tend to like "passive" spaces, of course, since they provide nicer views, while active parks might generate noise. One opponent wrote on the Brookland list that she would be able to see the proposed apartments from her window. So what? Our city's policy shouldn't prioritize preserving views to the exclusion of other policy aims, except key "monumental" viewsheds along major avenues toward the Capitol, Washington Monument, and other key landmarks. Being able to see the Metro station, at the expense of preventing other people from living in DC, making housing less affordable, and increasing crime, isn't an inherent right.

Harriet Tregoning also sent the Council a letter, promising to keep working with the community on some key issues. They will help the ANC establish a Design Review Committee to evaluate and weigh in on future development proposals. They will study the 12th Street retail corridor and engage with merchants to find ways to revitalize that retail strip. And they will coordinate with the DC Department of Parks and Recreation to "identify creative funding opportunities for park improvements" to the neighborhood's existing parks.

As Chairman Gray pointed out, the Office of Planning has spent an unprecedented amount of time and energy working with neighbors on this plan. And they have promised to keep working closely with the community. Some people love this plan. Others disagree very strongly. Either way, few DC agencies spend as much time and effort listening and collaborating as OP has done. This should serve as a model for good community outreach for other plans and other DC agencies.

33 comments — Share	— tags: Brookland, DC, DC Council, parks

Brookland to become all open space (Apr 1, 2009)
Councilmembers: stand firm for the Brookland Small Area Plan (Mar 2, 2009)
Thomas: Brooklanders support the Small Area Plan 50 to 1 (Feb 6, 2009)
Poplar Point and the Case of the Too-Large Park (Feb 4, 2009)
An even better Brookland (Feb 2, 2009)

Comments

David-

What was the vote? Was it unanimous or was their some diversity of opinion, debate??

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 11:34 am

Unanimous on a voice vote.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2009 11:41 am

Perhaps you meant to say "living in DC" instead of "loving in DC" in the last sentence of the eighth paragraph.

cf:

Being able to see the Metro station, at the expense of preventing other people from loving in DC, making housing less affordable, and increasing crime, isn't an inherent right.

by Steve on Mar 3, 2009 11:52 am

Good point; fixed. Open passive space doesn't prevent people from loving there, though if we replace it with housing, the loving that might take place on the site is more legal.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2009 11:54 am

A public square adjacent to a Metro station is WORST POSSIBLE place for "passive open space". Would Dupont Cirlce be better if it were an empty patch of weeds?

Ridiculous. Proof that the opposition wants nothing.

by BeyondDC on Mar 3, 2009 11:57 am

Thanks.

That is utterly consistent with my experience when I was promoting the Alexandria Orb and the preservation of the proposed Washington Street Urban Deck.

It was proposed to cover 1,100 feet of the Beltway but which was cut back by some 80% to trade away the funds for things as prettier sidewalks along and around the Prince Street area, voted unanimously by the Alexandria City Council in Dec 2000 and by USNCPC in March 2001.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-happened-at-alexandria-city-hall.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-could-have-been-said-backroom.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-this-was-outcome-of-highly.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/rubber-stamp-resolution-by-us-national.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-others-got-from-siphoning-urban.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-things-went-at-us-nati_117295465376800441.html

See more at my blog 'A Trip Within the Beltway' under the tag "Alexandria Orb"

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 12:00 pm

David,

Glad you covered the humorous angle there.

Could there be a rating system for DC's metro stations concerning their nearby land utilization? If a station is surrounded by abandoned buildings or parking lots, how about increasing the fares to and from that station and curtailing the station's hours of operation? It's obscene to build a hundred million dollar metro station in some cases on top of a billion dollar tunnel and then surround it with empty lots only to be used by the relative handful of people who are within walking distance. (Especially when that handful of people are the ones trying to stop any new development.)

by Steve on Mar 3, 2009 12:07 pm

Dupont Circle is 'passive open space,' isn't it? No ball fields, no dog parks. Just a fountain and benches. And lots of people -- talking, reading, eating lunch, sunning themselves, resting between gigs, playing chess.

It's spaces like these that make cities cities. Suburban space is much more programmed. It's the land of ball fields, dog parks, and plazas only where there is retail.

by z on Mar 3, 2009 1:13 pm

Dupont is not passive open space. Dupont is well designed, programmed space. Passive open space is essentially 'natural' land. It is appropriate in some circumstances, but certainly not near a Metro station.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2009 1:15 pm

Good job in all these posts in calling out the "open space" fetishists, who appear to largely be BANANAs who, bizarrely, seem to enjoy the status quo. "Passive" open space to me sounds like enjoying someone's undeveloped property without going to the bother of actually purchasing it, or designing a proper park or urban square.

by Paul on Mar 3, 2009 1:16 pm

I wrote in my previous post about parks that we should do away with the terms "open space" and "green space" altogether. They're useless feel-good weasel terms that are used by those who oppose everything.

We should only use the terms "park" and "undeveloped land." From that language, it becomes more clear that undeveloped land does no good for anyone when it is surrounded by developed land, as is the case with that undeveloped lot right next to the Brookland Metro. A park is clearly developed and serves a purpose within a human settlement.

As I said in my post, "open space" and its ugly, more misleading cousin, "green space" inherently market the suburban living arrangement and its axiom that more is better.

While we're at it, stop calling it "space" when it's "land." Space is what surrounds our planet.

More Open Space is a favorite refuge for someone who wants nothing and wants suburbia in the city at the expense of everyone else.

by Cavan on Mar 3, 2009 1:25 pm

Cavan: from my viewpoint, that's the complete opposite of what's being used, and represents the position that undeveloped land should be developed regardless.

Which isn't necessarily positive. May be in this Brookland case, but not in general.

by Froggie on Mar 3, 2009 2:03 pm

Cavan-

What you write sound like apologia for shoehorning townhouses along a railroad so it can even be widened to add a single northbound rail-track, or a stadium upon what was planned to be a monumental civic space along the South Capitol axis.

Would you have opposed the McMillan plan if it had required relocating a single Vatican church?

What 'new urbanist' voices (outside of Brookland) are calling for keeping some space for expanding the railway (let alone the much needed cut and cover highway)? I know such are dogmatically opposed to any new highways regardless of design, need, etc., but such silence about the failure to preserve space even for expanding rail transit is exceptionally bizarre.

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 2:18 pm

There is a big difference between undeveloped land that's outside of a human settlement and undeveloped land within a human settlement. This piece is surrounded on all sides by miles and miles of human settlement. Therefore, it doesn't do anyone any good. No animals can live there. No humans are using for anything positive.

by Cavan on Mar 3, 2009 2:20 pm

"More Open Space is a favorite refuge for someone who wants nothing and wants suburbia in the city at the expense of everyone else." That's just dogmatic -- aside from being inaccurate.

First, it sends us in the direct of nature = nothing. Actually, many Brooklanders want something in particular -- an old grove of trees.

Secondly, it overlooks the fact (which Paul obliquely alludes to) that the open space being called for is public space. It's seen as a shared resource rather than a privatized one (e.g. large lawns in suburbia).

Why is it unconscionably selfish and retrograde for a group of people who live in a verdant community to want to keep trees, yet somehow progressive and environmental for folks who don't live in this neighborhood to see the grove paved over in the hope that maybe some cool new restaurant or bar will rise from the ashes?

And why on earth isn't "define and improve the public space, while protecting the trees" an option? I don't assume that people are fighting to preserve chain link fences. They just don't want to see their Metro station turned into another Rosslyn. Why can't there be a middle ground?

(Short answer -- DC government has no interest in finding that middle ground, so it plays divide and conquer and to the developers and large commerical/institutional landlords go the spoils.)

by z on Mar 3, 2009 2:24 pm

>I know such are dogmatically opposed to any new highways regardless of design, need

You know, I've never heard you make a case for why a highway in that corridor is needed in the first place. The surface streets aren't particularly congested, and the New York Ave expressway is pretty close by. I think you're just dogmatically in favor of new highways wherever there may be room for one.

by BeyondDC on Mar 3, 2009 2:28 pm

grove? trees? How about dirt and mud?

What's the matter with Rosslyn? or DuPont? or Friendship Heights? or Silver Spring? It would be good for the District to get the tax money from the new residents.

It is not "public space." It's empty land. No one uses it right now, except for seedy activities under the cover of night. No kids use it. No one gathers on it. It's just unused land. Right next to a Metro station.

Finally, there is no "open space." The only open space is that which exists between galaxies. You either have a park or unused land. I will repeat: the term "open space" markets the axioms of them suburban arrangement that more is better and neighbors are only people who get in your way.

Not how things work in the big city, in a transit-rich environment.

by Cavan on Mar 3, 2009 2:31 pm

Beyond:

I have written extensively about that on my blog, with numerous links posted to Dave's site, and over the past decade on misc.transport.road and other newsgroups.

You simply pretend that I have not, while you and others pretend that chocking the corridor, even against rail expansion is a good idea.

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 2:37 pm

I went to your site and see two arguments for why the road should be built. "Evacuation" which is a non-issue for day-to-day travel (and which can be more efficiently handled via rail anyway), and "there's a gap" which just translates to "we should have highways wherever they don't exist yet". Perhaps I am missing the substantive arguments? Please point them out if I am.

by BeyondDC on Mar 3, 2009 2:59 pm

To start calling the undeveloped parcel between the parking lot and 10th street the "Brookland Common" is more than a little disingenuous. In the five years I've lived in Brookland, I've seen people using this space perhaps half a dozen times. None of the community-building activities happen there: not the Tuesday night farmer market, not the Sunday farmers' market, not the Brookland festival back when we had one. The Garden Club has never done anything there--not even a picnic.

Perhaps now that it's "threatened," we'll see a flurry of activity this spring. Or maybe not.

One of my favorite patterns from A Pattern Language is #60: Accessible green. The authors actually surveyed park users at a park in Berkeley and were able to determine that by and large, people won't travel more than 3 minutes to reach a park, which is 750 feet by foot. A 750-foot perimeter around what I call a patch-of-grass-that's-green-in-color-only doesn't capture very many residences.

Of course, nobody likes to see trees go, and if new residences are built then this could be an ideal place to give them, and all of us, a functioning park. Perhaps a park could be designed that uses many of the existing trees.

by thm on Mar 3, 2009 3:09 pm

D.C.'s missing northern radial:

One of the largest gaps in the urban transport network, with the railroad industrial corridor fortuitously about half way between the eastern Capital Beltway and the Potomac River.

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/141353/DC_Area_Map_XL.jpg

(Note that I favor the PEPCO-NH Ave-Masonic Eastern Star route rather then the NWB Park route)

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/560/1265/1600/108960/image102.jpg

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/09/washington-dc-big-dig.html

It was and is an entirely valid idea promoted by the JFK administration but which was deliberately botched via the 1963-64 study- see tag "highway routing mysteries". Can you provide an alternative reason why that study so deviated form the JFK plan?

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2008/01/physical-realities-undermining-north.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/05/1964-north-central-freeway-routing_08.html

But is not it true that you go along with the idea of no new grade separated highways.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-this-was-outcome-of-highly.html

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/02/doctrinaire-anti-new-highway-position.html

And still why can't you bring yourself to oppose the chocking that precludes rail expansion??

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 3:14 pm

I just can't see where the opposition to this is coming from. At all. To most people who don't already live there, Brookland is the last place on earth they would want to live or even visit. There's so much potential there, why not try to begin to achieve it?

As a side note, @Douglas --

The use of the word chocking, why? Please. Seriously. It's an antiquated term and is not in any way nnecessary to describe what you want to describe.

by Nate on Mar 3, 2009 3:20 pm

>One of the largest gaps in the urban transport network, with the railroad industrial corridor fortuitously about half way between the eastern Capital Beltway and the Potomac River.

Right. In other words "we should build a highway there because there isn't one and we can". Nothing about why we should.

Sorry, but "there isn't a highway here now" is NOT on its own a good reason to build a highway any more than "there isn't a big hole in the ground here now" is a good reason to dig a big empty hole. Maybe if there were some compelling reason, but I can't think of one, and the (totally manageable) level of congestion on 16th and Georgia indicates that there's already enough road supply for the demand.

As for rail expansion, I don't oppose it. However, I suspect that it would be easier and more effective to divert through rail traffic via new tracks outside the city in order to free up capacity. Even if new rails are needed, I am not willing to tie them to a new highway.

by BeyondDC on Mar 3, 2009 3:39 pm

The highway makes absolute sense as a schematic as does the ICC and the Purple Line. Only in D.C. is a north south highway lacking where there is the space for it without the need for drilled tunneling (aka SF's 19th Street corridor).

Chocking the corridor makes no sense, *particularly this most revealing inability of you and others to call for maintain room to expand the railroad* indicates not being honastly mistaken, but rather shills for that entity which has no business existing in this country- aka selfesh CUA and Eastren Star luciferian masonry (see their goat's head logo). It belongs in the category with selfish CCCC's opposition to the Purple Line.

Clearly you state that white is black and black is white with your absurdities, particularly that in favor of CUA's isolation via the surface railroad with word to the effect that do not put cities in parks but rather parks in cities

Perhaps some point later in life you will see the futility of placating such despicable entities more concerned with domestic surveillance and REX concentration camps passed by officials unanimously and without evident debate.

May there one day be a Grand Arc Mall tunnel, with adaptive reuse of a *former* CUA. Likewise say in 25 years with a demolished Nationals Stadium and a removed St Vincent de Paul Church.

I need not continue typing, just read the links I gave you instead of pretending that I have not stated why.

You have already indicated a total opposition to any new highways anywhere IIRC, so why should I pretend that you can here be open minded.

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 3, 2009 4:09 pm

Curses! I suppose I may as well own up now that you've pegged me. You're right; I'm an agent of Eastern Star Luciferian Masonry (ESLM FTW!). My goal is domestic surveillance and creation of REX concentration camps (that's why I got them to name the Route 1 bus service in VA the "REX"). I'm going to accomplish my goals by advocating against new highways in places where there is already wide consensus that they shouldn't be built.

Diabolical, I know. Luckily for me you've only scratched the surface of my nefarious plot. Forces of darkness for which you can nary fathom are at work on all manner of unspeakably horrible misdeeds. Boo-wah-hahaHAHAHAHA!

by BeyondDC on Mar 3, 2009 4:21 pm

@BDC

Could you get the forces of darkness to build some new metrorail alignments in DC?

Thanks!

by Steve on Mar 3, 2009 4:26 pm

Choking, for the love of pete. It is choking, not chocking.

by NikolasM on Mar 3, 2009 4:30 pm

@Douglas

Your argument is still that there should be a highway there because there isn't a highway there and there could be a highway there. Also, that last comment, certifiably insane.

by Nate on Mar 3, 2009 4:35 pm

There's already a lot of passive open space at the Metro entrance in the plan -- the grounds of the Brook's Mansion. Take a look at a map of the area. The station suffers from too much passive open space, which makes it not very convenient to anything at best, and spooky or dangerous at worst. A few years ago we estimated the number of feet between the Metro entrance and the first store for a number of stations. See Project for Public Spaces for more on creating great urban public spaces - where people want to be & feel safe.

by Cheryl on Mar 3, 2009 5:37 pm

I resent the unfair and slanderous use of the ESLM here. Ah the Imperial Grand Poo-bah and Goat Horn Washer, I can certify that we do not reflexively oppose transportation increases in this area. We are far too busy preparing for the Annual Tex/Mex Baby BBQ Festival on April 1st. Though our official preference is for a special goat cart path running along side the Metro right of way, rather than a highway per-se, unless said highway has special goat cart lanes.

by John on Mar 3, 2009 5:58 pm

National Treasure III aside, wouldn't it make more sense to simply transvaluate the term "green space" to a neutral term. I think it defines those sort of things called green spaces are just that: ill-defined areas filled with greenish stuff. The people on this blog just understand that that's not categorically a good thing.

Incidentally, usually planners call anything not specifically programmed for activity "passive green space," but that truly is a misnomer. It's really "casual green space," where you don't need a formality like a team or a uniform to have fun, but hardly passive.

by цarьchitect on Mar 3, 2009 8:48 pm

The idea of having a piece of land that is bare and unkept, and further unused, in the middle of an urban enviornment is the biggest waste of resources imaginable. Whatever bong-toating hippy came up with that idea should be booted out of the city and back into the real suburbs where they belong. I'm all for the preservation of land, but in a USEFUL context such as a park, zoo, or other maintained and designated area. I do think that some space should be left for future railway expansion, but that too, will have a purpose and so is still not a waste of resources, as long as the reservation is legitimate and the purpose of reservation likely to occur; perhaps the land could be reserved for multiple prospects (rail expansion, *groan* highway expansion, or even some building project) with a fixed time-period for use (to ensure that it does not sit forever and become further useless to society). Just my two cents... if you really sawant weed-filled land with no valuable use, move out to Anne Arundle county or somwhere out in Halethorpe for crying out loud!

by matt on Mar 4, 2009 10:05 am

Nate-

The basic concept of a north south radial about halfway between the existing MD Beltway and the GW Parkway in Virginia within a large urban area currently undeserved but with among the worst traffic issues in the nation. The B&O NCF concept makes perfect sense, as the Administration of John F. Kennedy felt.

The reaction of denying this simply for the wishes of the medieval inquisition of the Vatican (CUA) and Masonry (Eastern Star): truly insane, and truly environmental racism for placing a disproportionate amount of the burden in SE.

Of course we get the BS factor when it involved the overly political influential, ignore truth when truth is perceived as inconvenient for the ruling oligarchy- welcome to Romish-Masonic Washington, D.C.

by Douglas Willinger on Mar 6, 2009 7:03 pm