Architecture
McMillan Two envisions a classical Anacostia
Images courtesy Nir Buras.
The public character of Washington has grown around two grand plans. First, Charles L'Enfant laid out the city as a sacred grove for the marking of America's history. One century later, the McMillan Commission restored and expanded upon that original design to include the history of the Nineteenth Century.
The city center has grown up in the second hundred years since, enough for Congress to declare the Mall closed to new development. Meanwhile, the rest of the city has built up or spread out into suburbs. In light of the last fifty years, a group of traditional Washingtonian architects have developed an audacious proposal for the next lifetime of growth, known as McMillan Two. Fulfilling some less-known intentions of the McMillan Plan with slight modifications, this plan essentially calls for bringing Paris, mansard, Seine and all, to the Capital of the United States.
Developed by the Build DC Initiative and architect Nir Buras in particular, the design has accumulated sponsors such as the Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America, the National Civic Arts Society, and some support from the DC chapter of the Congress for New Urbanism.
Buras's philosophy draws hard from tradition: we know what is beautiful and what works, and we should follow that. Downplaying strident formal innovation, the relationship buildings have to precedents in a cultural tradition guides design. For McMillan Two, France provides that tradition, particularly L'Enfant's garden models and the Beaux-arts education of Burnham, McKim, and Olmsted. Though the partners have kept much of the project under wraps, Buras has recently begun sharing the outlines of this radical rethinking of DC's future.
Area around Poplar Point now (left) and proposed (right).
The keystone of the plan is a narrowed Anacostia, slimmed by half to the Seine's width of around 500 feet. And just as at the Seine, fourteen-foot-tall stone embankments would allow streets to pass over the river at grade, with street level above potential floods. Away from the river, McMillan Two calls for the elimination – or at least burial – of all freeways and rail lines south of the Mall that disconnect River East from the Federal City. In place of these marginal spaces, marshlands, and rivers of concrete, the grid would extend out onto reclaimed land. The new real estate would allow for the construction of thousands of new apartments and offices without directly displacing any individuals. Passing through lots and streets, new avenues would meet at open squares for future monuments after the style of L'Enfant and Haussmann.
Area around East Capitol Street now (left) and proposed (right).
The largest public area would be a vast basin just north of what is now Poplar Point that would serve as a plaza with around water. Upstream, East Capitol Street would cross over an island modeled on Île de la Cité with the Blue and Orange Lines underground. At the southern end of the project, a gateway of two large pillars on quays would visually separate the Potomac from its tributary.
Most buildings would stand six to eight stories tall, with the last two minimized behind a sloped roof. Large tree-lined promenades (Buras believes DC can improve on Paris by adding more trees) would pass throughout the reclaimed area, with particularly verdant ones running along the upper level of the embankment. Spaces created in the embankment promenades would house boat clubs, restaurants accessible from a lower-level embankment. Alternatively, infrastructure such as a Chicago-style service road or commuter rail might fill in the space made by raising the ground level, but again, there is flexibility.
Left: Section of the proposed embankment. Right: Seine embankment by cuellar on Flickr.
Additionally, the plan would improve the street infrastructure while also lessening the dominance of automobiles. The new avenues and side streets would support well more than the current freeways carry and pass over more bridges. An admirer of Hans Monderman, Buras emphasizes the importance of intuitive roads and shared space, citing the George Washington Parkway as a local example of both. In terms of transit infrastructure, Streetcars could also be added as needed, along with bus facilities, but Build DC have deliberately left transportation plans loose, open to long-term change.
This intentional vagueness contrasts with the programmatic specificity in the NCPC's 1997 Extending the Legacy plan and Comprehensive Plan program. These current successors to the McMillan Plan focus on adding large new public spaces for monuments. Because it sticks primarily to the grid and avenues, the McMillan Two Design appears much less grandiose, but also less green. For example, NCPC calls for East Capitol Street to pass under at an East Mall and then over the Anacostia. The McMillan Two plan would restore the boulevard straight across, with no new parkland. Considering the constant use of the athletic fields around the Mall, retaining the same acreage of useable parkland, or even increasing it, would be wise even if it departs from L'Enfant's vision. The Frenchman's genius notwithstanding, the outdoors interests of city dwellers have changed significantly from 1790 and even 1902. Accommodating more active recreation, uses that require substantial space, will enhance the quality of life of residents. Adding a few hundred thousand people while reducing recreation space would diminish the quality of city life and make urbanism less appealing to potential residents.
Of course, the trope is that the French don't exercise too much – so if people will soon be living in Point Peuplier, perhaps lifestyles will change as much as the built environment. But Paris is different than DC in many ways as well. Most importantly, the Seine had a similar, but not identical character. Until the 1700s, the Seine was a very small river except during rainfall, surrounded by mudflats and wetlands. The Anacostia, even in its current state is 1000 feet wide without any rain, even if it's very shallow in most parts. And even when builders channelized the Seine, its course was not as abstracted as the McMillan Two plan calls for. More generally, Washington's geology and climate do not totally resemble Paris's, and a respect for these characteristics of a region should be visible in a city based on the genius of place. In Paris and most of France, limestone is a local material and weather is more temperate; in DC, that material is brick and the humidity can be oppressive. The latter two differences are minor, so Buras argues that the form and style could be appropriately adapted to local needs.
However, Build DC needs to resolve several contentious issues before matters of style come up. First, they must clearly defend the need for such a bold, expensive undertaking. Currently, the area in question lacks important infrastructure, while other, unremarkable areas have access to those resources, but are themselves underdeveloped. Secondly, they need to prove that the environmental effects of eliminating wetlands and narrowing the channel will not adversely affect the river ecosystem or cause further innundation. The elimination of marshes and channelization in other cities has led to serious flooding and dangerous river conditions. Build DC needs to demonstrate that a scheme that remediates the habitat and adds density elsewhere would not work as well. As a secondary question, the known level of dioxin pollution in Anacostia sediment calls into question whether the dredged material could even be used for fill without risking serious contamination. Lastly, they need to settle the means of financing for such a project. Presently, the scheme calls for sale of townhouse-sized lots and the distribution of some lots to residents of Anacostia or other underprivileged groups. But the specifics are not yet set in stone, and Buras freely acknowledges this, even as he anticipates civic generosity from Congress.
Proposed Naval Museum on the Washington Channel.
That financial and political support will need to appear before any new Classical plan begins to guide the future of Washington. In regard to its lack of formal approval, the McMillan Two plan resembles the 1909 Plan of Chicago. Brought to the public realm by private figures, the Burnham Plan still guided planners and politicians. Some of the iconic structures never saw completion, but the beautiful parks along Lake Michigan, the transit infrastructure improvements, and the many bridges over the river would not have happened had Burnham and Bennett made only little plans. Unsurprisingly, Build DC is taking a long perspective for completion, one hundred years at least to really see major construction. But for now, the best thing to do with these plans is to debate them. The beauty of unsolicited architecture is that it encourages others react and form ideas in dialogue, so people have some centering when trying to imagine the future. McMillan Two is one such provocation, with brilliant and sound elements along side questionable and uncertain problems. What the region makes of it will depend on a serious consideration of its merits in public debate.
Cross-posted at цarьchitect.
96 comments —  Share | — tags: Anacostia, architecture, DC, McMillan Two, Paris |
Comments
Post a Comment
- WMATA presents options for SmarTrip negative balances
- Teens and young adults aren't mosquitoes
- You know you've arrived when...
- Combine the Circulator and Metro maps for visitors
- For state legislature in Montgomery County
- For Prince George's County offices
- Navy Yard sidewalks get sustainable stormwater systems
Smart Growth
Add jobs, retail, and housing for all income levels in walkable places like
Wisconsin Avenue, Brookland, and Minnesota-
Transit
Provide more alternatives to driving by expanding Metro capacity, building streetcar lines, and speeding up buses. Grow ridership through better maps and schedules from signs to mobile devices. Read posts »
Public Space
Our roadways are our most valuable public places. Design them to accommodate safe walking and bicycling. Locate plazas and public parks to create numerous focal points for human activity. Read posts »
Traffic
Design neighborhoods around grids instead of cul-de-sacs. Avoid building new freeways or widening existing ones which only induces further sprawl. Read posts »
Parking
Drivers create substantial traffic by circling endlessly for scarce parking. Use pricing to manage curb space and dedicate the revenue to providing alternatives to driving. Read posts »
Architecture
Preserve our row house neighborhoods and beautiful architecture that engages pedestrians visually and functionally. Eschew bad modernism that turns its back on the street and the starchitects that peddle it to "make a statement." Read posts »
Education & Safety
Make our urban areas desirable places for people and families of all ages with the highest quality education and safe neighborhoods for all. Read posts »
by tom veil on Oct 14, 2009 1:08 pm
Exactly how is the GW parkway a good example of shared space? While I do not want to dismiss its value, it is *not* shared space. It's a severely limited access highway with a bike path alongside, cutting of access of everybody who lives behind it from the waterfront.
That is not shared space according to Monderman.
by Jasper on Oct 14, 2009 1:14 pm
by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 1:21 pm
by NikolasM on Oct 14, 2009 1:23 pm
I should add that I like great plans like this. Here's a guy with a great vision. We need more of those. I would love to see more bridges in DC. I've always missed them. I think it's a great plan to extend the downtown grid across the river. They missed a great opportunity doing that with Arlington and Alexandria.
However, with the clownesk leadership in this city (isn't that Barry's ward across the Anacostia there?), this plan will never happen.
Furthermore, I don't think DC and Paris have a lot in common. It would be better to find DCs own thing. Perhaps a new DHS could be used to start development there.
by Jasper on Oct 14, 2009 1:39 pm
One thing I'm noticing is that despite the big move of narrowing the river, the plan doesn't really gain that much land from it - most of the gains in the new grid come from converting other land to the grid (Poplar Point, the Navy Yard, Bolling AFB, RFK, Anacostia Park).
That raises the question - why narrow the river at all? Why not just add more bridges?
by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2009 2:04 pm
"Buras's philosophy draws hard from tradition" How is drawing from working models "radical"? If radical is solving a serious problem with solutions that work well, then Roebling, Olmstead, and Pope where anarchists.
by Thayer-D on Oct 14, 2009 2:12 pm
by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 2:14 pm
by dano on Oct 14, 2009 2:15 pm
by Jasper on Oct 14, 2009 2:27 pm
by NikolasM on Oct 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Why would continuing these old-timey practices be a good future design for an expanding city that _should be_ easy to use / get around in?
by James on Oct 14, 2009 2:37 pm
by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Given that the lower Anacostia, like the Potomac at least up to Georgetown, is tidal, I fail to see how narrowing the channel is going to help any.
Along those same lines, removing wetlands is a *BAD* idea. Wetlands are natural water quality filters.
by Froggie on Oct 14, 2009 2:44 pm
what we do not need are starchitects doing our planning- they will totally wreck it.
One thing- and this really bothers me;
Lenfant did not get his inspiration from Paris or English Gardens- he said - quite often and very definitively- that his idea for DC's plan came from Karlsruhe Germany's plan.
This historical fact needs to be corrected- as much of our history has been distorted by the prejudices engendered by two world wars.
Ronald Lauder himself is on a crusade to try to abolish some of these idiotic revisionist mistakes- despite his family having been victimized during WW2- he understands the importance of the Germanic culture - a reason why he opened the Neues gallerie in NYC.He recognizes that the visual and plastic artists are still the unintended victims of WW2 even though it has been over for almost 3/4 of a century.
The planners of Karlsruhe had nothing to do with WW1 or WW2 and we need to acknowledge the incredible impact of this groundbreaking urban design actually had.
by w on Oct 14, 2009 2:44 pm
The Anacostia used to be DC's main port because the Potomac was mostly abutted by the city as with the mall. When it silted up, it lost some importance, especially after the Navy Yard stopped serving as a factory.
by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 2:49 pm
Anyway, I love this plan, and hope that architectural critics who want to see more modernism don't attack it on those grounds. Focus on the street grid. It's the main thing here.
by BeyondDC on Oct 14, 2009 2:49 pm
If we can focus a few hundred million square feet of development along the Anacostia by taking a few wetlands there, how many wetlands out in the suburbs will we save from development?
by BeyondDC on Oct 14, 2009 2:52 pm
While I greatly appreciate you brining this article to everyone's attention, I'm not sure why you have to refer to me as cute when I quote your words directly.
"Thayer, you're cute. I described the plan as radical and Buras as traditional. "
Your saying that Buras draws hard from tradition to produce a radical plan. Sorry, but that just don't make sense no matter what you think of me personally.
by Thayer-D on Oct 14, 2009 3:03 pm
by Canaan on Oct 14, 2009 3:08 pm
And why are the wetlands and public parks gone? I thot this had the makings of a good plan, but it's turning into a Leon Krieresque nightmare of quasipublic corporatized spaces and Speerian lines. I mean, is this much destruction really necessary to bring about useful transformation?
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 3:14 pm
The embankment section showing tunnels along the side would also allow for flood level water a little more room to expand and given that the embankment is quite high, flooding would be a non issue.
I've never been to Paris, but I'm headed there next month, and I'll be checking out the riverside and planning as for sure (on top of seeing the top notch architecture). As far as DC being based on Karlsruhe, I'm not so sure that that city's form is conclusively the same as DC. While there may be similarities, and there are many Baroque cities that are similar, looking at the plans, Versailles is clearly more like DC, with the added superimposed grid.
by Boots on Oct 14, 2009 3:22 pm
Whether or not the model is radical is beside the point, the politics and conditions of the site make the particular proposal revolutionary. It also changes the focus of DC's planning culture from a conservative postdmodern plan of making more land for monuments to one that's much more urban.
w: Jefferson loaned L'Enfant a plan of Karlsruhe, that's true. He also gave him books about Rome, French Neoclassicism, and other cities undergoing transformation. But L'Enfant grew up at Versailles and was interested in the Enlightenment Baroque (and vaguely masonic) idea of a formal Sacred Grove. They're all there, so unless you can definitively point me to a book or quotation, I don't agree that it was the model.
BDC: Agreed. There's a clear preference for Greco-Roman classical architecture here, but that shouldn't distract from the other point. The style/architecture spat already poisoned a lot of minds against New Urbanist ideas for no good reason.
by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 3:23 pm
The Army Corps of Engineers, starting in the 1870's began to slowly change the river profiles around the port areas of DC. One of the changes made being the large shoal that held up navigation near the mouth of the Anacostia- once this was gone, large ships were more easily brought to the Navy Yard. West Potomac Park is another result of this large scale dredging and land reclaimation by the ACE.
How many people are aware that the first USA aircraft carrier was tested in the Anacostia river?
The engineers at the Navy Yard designed , built & tested the new catapult system and there are photos at the Navy Archives showing the early biplanes taking off from it's deck with the Capitol in the background, etc.
Malaria and yellow fever could still make a comeback in the USA- especially with our super complacent anti- spraying mentality and lack of concern for controlling the voracious mosquito populations here.
The dredging for the deepwater channel was halted when super high levels of PCBs were found in the sediments on the river bottom and the EPA did not want them disturbed so that the important downstream shellfish industries were aversely affected. PCBs were used to lubricate the lathes and milling machines that bored and formed the giant 16 inch naval cannons made at the gun factory- the world's largest. The PEPCO plant upriver at Benning Road also contributed their own PCBs to the river.
Mosquitos and navigation were principal reasons for clearing out these marshy areas- and historically- the Anacostia- like the Potomac- was both much much deeper and wider.
by w on Oct 14, 2009 3:31 pm
by Skeptic on Oct 14, 2009 3:32 pm
yes indeed these other places like Versailles were important to Lenfant- but they were also not stricken from the historical record because of ingrained repulsion for everything German that at least two generations of US & UK scholars perpetuated. Karlsruhe deserves it's rightful place and has NOT been acknowledged by the powers that be who control what is said about DC's history.
http://www.spotlightgermany.com/articles/karlsruhe.htm
by w on Oct 14, 2009 3:38 pm
Nice try, but I'm not sure how many people in Wards 7 and 8 would view this as an improvement.
Welcome to Washington.
by Capitol Dome on Oct 14, 2009 3:46 pm
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 3:54 pm
by Thayer-D on Oct 14, 2009 3:54 pm
by Cavan on Oct 14, 2009 3:57 pm
Incidentally, I never said anything about 295/395, but I agree that there should be organic growth extending from the original L'Enfant and Banneker plans. This just isn't that.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 4:01 pm
Also, you have to remember that this is DC, an overwhelming liberal and majority-black city. As such, political decisions are always viewed through the prisms of race and class, thus rendering this project politically impossible by those political standards.
by Capitol Dome on Oct 14, 2009 4:13 pm
by Boots on Oct 14, 2009 4:14 pm
by Thayer-D on Oct 14, 2009 4:15 pm
by Boots on Oct 14, 2009 4:18 pm
Do people use Poplar Point? No. Do people use Anacostia Park? Yes, most definitely.
Neil mentioned it earlier, but DC has a strong lack of athletic field space - general, active open space. Anacostia Park will get overwhelmed at times with flag football, softball, ultimate frisbee, etc. That park's problem is the connections (or lack thereof) both to the neighborhood and to the other side of the river.
by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Isn't it interesting that nobody is proposing building over remote parts of Rock Creek Park but when it comes to Anacostia Park, it's suddenly ok?
by Capitol Dome on Oct 14, 2009 4:20 pm
Capitol Dome: Oh hay sup MPC? I see what you did thar.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 4:22 pm
Capitol Dome: Oh hay sup MPC? I see what you did thar.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 4:22 pm
Narrowing the river would be expensive, but keeping the marshes makes more ecological sense and would differ some unique environments.
Much of the plan could be implemented w/o doing much to the Anacostia. I also wouldn't worry too much about fantasy museums--institutions like that take forever to get funded.
As for social justice--eastern Capitol Hill is largely middle class, although it's been undergoing gradual gentrification for the past couple decades. Anacostia center would be a different matter. One consideration is that poverty is a regional issue and not just the responsibility of DC government.
by Rich on Oct 14, 2009 4:39 pm
You don't need swaths of land to have outdoor recreation, there's no reason that you cant play softball in places as big as Lincoln park, its just they are set up differently.
by Boots on Oct 14, 2009 4:40 pm
there are some new items out on Karlsruhe.
There has most definietly been an ingrained prejudice against admitting Karlsruhe's importance in developing Lenfant's plan. It is probably hard for some people to accept this because of so much of the orthodoxy and re-writing of history following WW2.
Did you know that Peter Paul Rubens was born in Germany and spent his first 20 some years there, and he is considered German in Europe- but Flemish in the USA? His first language was German and he studied art in Koln [ Cologne].
Another example of this WW1, WW2 era rewriting of history.
by w on Oct 14, 2009 4:44 pm
The larger point is, however, that these considerations need to be addressed. You can't just take that space away and expect that replacing it with more wannabe Lincoln Parks will solve everything.
by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2009 4:49 pm
http://strassgefuhl.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/rivers-of-concrete-lovely-and-not/
I didn't write a lot at the time, so maybe I should go back and crystallize my thoughts some more, but still, I worry about the Los Angeles effect here - turning what was a presence into a void.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 5:01 pm
In any case, it couldn't have been based on Paris, because the Paris we know today (with its bridges, grand avenues, and vistas) didn't exist back when Washington was designed and first settled. It was created by Baron Haussmann for Napoleon III between 1852 and 1870.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris
Now, is it possible that Paris was based on Washington? Perhaps yes ... in a roundabout way ...
by Lance on Oct 14, 2009 5:10 pm
The picture you show of the "boxed" LA River looks like the Anacostia today - bounded on both sides by utterly unusable, wasted space. Conversely, the picture you show of Seoul looks very much like what is being proposed in this plan - a sunken esplanade surrounded by fully urban uses.
Is that Seoul picture *really* what you see when you look at the Anacostia today?
by BeyondDC on Oct 14, 2009 5:20 pm
"Baron Haussmann, a long-time prefect of Bordeaux, used Bordeaux's 18th century big-scale rebuilding as a model when he was asked by Emperor Napoleon III to transform a then still quasi-medieval Paris into a "modern" capital that would make France proud."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux
by Lance on Oct 14, 2009 5:38 pm
Ship them south to Charles County and beyond?
This is a serious question. Until you get rid of this permanent underclass, the SE quadrant of the city will remain largely unliveable, no matter how much urban planning takes place.
by realist on Oct 14, 2009 5:39 pm
The Anacostia today is mostly a wild river, not a concrete trough whose purpose is to regulate its own floods. That is the ultimate outcome of a boxed river. That, more than the attendant uselessness of the public space, is the tragedy many in Los Angeles wish to undo.
Maybe it isn't a terrible idea to make the Anacostia into a somewhat more programmatic public amenity. I just want to make sure that some of its natural function is maintained, which will inevitably make it a more interesting and integral space than if it were engineered into a pseudo-Seine-avec-MRGO-that-isn't-quite.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 5:41 pm
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 5:41 pm
What you see in Seoul is exactly what's proposed - a sunken esplanade surrounded by fully urban blocks. There's nothing natural about those walls and concrete walkways you see on either side of the Seoul stream. That thing is every bit as engineered as the LA River.
Would you feel better about the Anacostia plan if we lined one side of it with a 10-foot embankment of reeds?
Explain how the Seoul picture is different than what's proposed.
by BeyondDC on Oct 14, 2009 6:14 pm
Yes.
Explain how the Seoul picture is different than what's proposed.
There's vegetation in the river. There's vegetation on the side of the river. I'm not arguing that landscaping is impossible - I'm arguing that there should be landscaping whatsoever.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 6:23 pm
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 6:27 pm
It's sad to see that the old environmentalist canard of thou shalt not build a normal city in a drainage basin has reared its ugly head, when the government itself has shown how low-site-coverage solutions that result from this crazy obsession with SUDS inevitably result in higher basin coverage. The environmentalist fantasy world would never allow Paris to be built: they'd end up with a Plan Voisin without the merits of modern conveniences.
Then there's the other canard that America would do better by emulating England by controlling development to the point that poor people cannot afford housing on the basis that "we" (meaning upper middle class people of a certain age) "don't need any more houses": this is a recipe for massively reduced economic opportunities and eventual stagnation.
But although we all know (and presumably love) Paris, it does not have a monopoly on embanked waterfronts. Is the Vltava through the centre of Prague a pseudo-Seine? Of course not: it's a river with a wholly different cultural identity. Equally, the McMillan plan could only possibly be Washington, DC.
by James D on Oct 14, 2009 6:36 pm
Is the Vltava through the centre of Prague a pseudo-Seine? Of course not: it's a river with a wholly different cultural identity.
That's true, except this isn't the Vltava, either. If it isn't the Seine, it's the Olmsted-Burnham Chicago lakefront superimposed on pre-existing cultural artifacts that it erases. And they say neo-traditionalists abhor the irony of (other) postmodernists....
Besides, if we're going to be looking to other capitals as models to emulate, why stay with western Europe? Why not look at Tokyo, or Beijing, or any number of east Asian cities whose waterfront areas are beautiful and frenetic and contemporary at the same time?
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 7:00 pm
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 14, 2009 7:03 pm
by Trulee Pist on Oct 14, 2009 7:47 pm
JD, I clicked your link, but to my eyes it makes exactly the opposite point.
The picture you show of the "boxed" LA River looks like the Anacostia today - bounded on both sides by utterly unusable, wasted space.
If I'm looking at the same picture of the Los Angeles River, that "wasted space" is rail lines responsible for serving the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, which happens to be the busiest port in the US, moving hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cargo. They are responsible for a large part of LA's past and future prosperity.
Granted, the rail lines don't have to go right beside the river (and there's interesting relocation work going on with stuff like the Alameda Corridor), but they have to go somewhere. Just because we're not looking at blocks of mixed-use, multiple-unit buildings doesn't mean wasted space.
DC, of course, is not LA. The relevant debate isn't really the LA River - try Ballona Creek and the development of marshlands around its mouth, for a closer model. It's highly contentious because there are precious few tidal wetlands left in Southern California.
Tidal wetlands, like the lower reaches of the Anacostia, are tricky. They only occur where the ocean meets fresh water. This is a rare environment indeed, however damaged. Any suburban development that this plan might replace is not going to be in a place with such rare geological circumstances. We've got plenty of piedmont forest - go build on it - but few places with the potential value of the Anacostia.
by David R. on Oct 14, 2009 10:02 pm
In all its fixation on the lake and river crossings, the plan's vision did a remarkably poor job of ensuring access to parks for people inland, especially on the poor South and West Sides. It's emblematic of one of the Burnham Plan's weaknesses: a nasty habit of eliding the small-scale problems of the people who happen to live there, particularly the ones far from the lake, by covering the little details in a wash of gorgeous watercolor.
I usually support big-picture thinking. The city needs vision. I can't abide the way we've frittered away opportunities to make a greater, more legible city, in the interest of short-term tax base expansion.
But this is a draftsman's geometric fantasy. Classical perfection's wonderful and everything, but this kind of tabula rasa bulldozer fest has more of a place in greenfield development.
by David R. on Oct 14, 2009 10:23 pm
I don't think it is fair to condemn architecture as a profession for being incapable of producing thoughtful logical urban plans. Obviously these architects have done so. L'Enfant was an architect. So is Jaime Lerner, and look what he's done for Curitiba.
by ogden on Oct 14, 2009 11:11 pm
by Alex B. on Oct 14, 2009 11:17 pm
by цarьchitect on Oct 15, 2009 4:10 am
@JD "Is this the argument that you presume other people are having when anyone questions neotraditional aesthetics?"
How are modernist styles not neotraditional too? They've been doing them for the last 90 years.
"I find it deeply ironic that a committed "classicist" would tear down that entire complex to substitute it with a pseudo-historic complex of similar architectural model"
Again, don't let the "language" of the buildings get in the way of an honest assesment of this plan. Baron Von Hausman was a comitted classicist, one assumes. (I guess he tore down medieval fabric) The reason one might wonder why a "traditionalist" would contemplate tearing down historic fabric for what their sketches portray is because they assume what will be built will be better than what's there. In fact, that was always the assumption by the public until the "Modernists" proposed the trully radical trashing of our entire history in favor of their hyper intellectualized visions.
If one preferrs modernism is completely besides the point. How wide the river or how many parks it ultimatley has are details to be left to the actual implementation of what is a simple extension of an existing street pattern that seems to be universally accepted as a preaty niffty plan.
by Thayer-D on Oct 15, 2009 6:44 am
This doesn't need to be an either/or proposition. I think it's both possible and desirable to manipulate the river into a more urban context, but do so in an ecologically friendly way. The notion that we need to build here to save wetlands someplace else is true, but it also presents a false dichotomy. Sure, we should build here - but what we build ought to be environmentally friendly.
DC is already a pretty green and environmentally friendly place, yet the water quality in the Anacostia sucks. Correlation is not causation.
by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2009 8:52 am
As a practical, civil engineer however, I wince every time I see people adding tunnels, building more bridges, burying highways. It all looks and sounds grand, but no one thinks of the long term maintenance and upkeep costs of these expensive and complicated projects. Bridges, tunnels etc cost a bloody fortune to maintain and I would like to see DC's public works evolve in a way that works in a grand way, but in responsible fiscal fashion.
For example...the 14th street bridge is actually a group of 5 bridges connecting VA to DC. The distance separating the two furthers bridges is a ~ mile. Why is it that we need 5 bridges within a mile span. DC-DOT is currently in the long term planning for their replacement. They will replace 5 bridges, with 5 more. I'd rather see a mega bridge, designed in the beautiful Memorial Bridge way, rather that 5 utilitarian bridges that just take up more space.
The combined bridge could accommodate all the traffic currently accommodated by the 5, and a sub-deck metro rail.
Cheaper to build and much cheaper to maintain than 5 separate bridges, that also frees up lots of space on both banks of the Potomac where the bridges used to be.
Alas...I doubt this will ever come to fruition, but thats the kind of long term fiscal planning we need with DC public works.
by DC Engineer on Oct 15, 2009 9:09 am
If you leave the Anacostia as it is now, as a decidedly T1 zone in between two parts of the city, they remain just that, two SEPARATE parts. The plan given here weaves both of these parts together to create one city. Also look to how the plan eliminates the 395 cutting a swath across the city. The entire effort is to create a unified city north and south of the river.
It is not about boxing the river like LA, or as London did, with many of its streams. Instead it's about about celebrating and enhancing the river making it open for people to use.
LA boxed the river to control the flash flooding that occurs when it rains there. Having lived there its a frightening thing seeing a trickle of a stream turn into a rolling 20 foot deep torrent that smashes the hillsides.
Allow me to put on my art historian hat W - I still don't see the connection other than the general connection of Baroque city planning.
I think yes, Karlsruhe and others do have some influence on DC, as being part of a larger tradition of Baroque planning, but given the formal dissimilarities, I say there is not a direct influence. The influence is more of general one, an influence that also includes the Renaissance planning of Rome, with it's tridents and long straight vistas, and other French and Italian precedent.
I don't think that I come from, nor do most scholars I know of, exhibit an anti-German bias. I love Germany, and I jumped at the chance to spend three weeks there studying architecture and planning, Schinkel is still one of my favorites and as many of my professors at Notre Dame put it, one the most influential architects even in American Grecian architecture (the Patent Building for instance).
by Boots on Oct 15, 2009 9:24 am
That statement is preceded immediately by this statement:
The "Modernists" proposed the trully radical trashing of our entire history in favor of their hyper intellectualized visions.
And yet even that statement is for whatever reason preceded by a defensive justification that minimizes Haussmann's real destruction of historic context in favor of a contemporary style. Not just something that you "guess" happened; it actually did happen, it's in the historical record.
So I think a question of aesthetic tastes that inform an aesthetic project of this scale is entirely up for discussion, yes.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 15, 2009 9:25 am
This flooding has become significantly worse since the 1950s, when effectively the entire river system was redesigned to be its own storm drain. Certainly when the Manzanares or the Tiber or the Ayalon or most other urban arid rivers were channelized (regardless of whether modernism was en vogue at the time, Thayer), they didn't start to behave like the L.A. River does today. It's an exceptionally bad piece of hydrological engineering.
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 15, 2009 9:32 am
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 15, 2009 9:55 am
I know that Mass. set out 30+ years ago to make the river "swimmable" (hi, Bill Weld!), but now it's drinkable too?
Technically the dam eliminates tidal flows in the river that created flooding and prevents salt water from going too far "upstream".
by ah on Oct 15, 2009 10:10 am
My only point was that portion of the Charles River isn't so much a river as it is a lake.
by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2009 10:13 am
We have something incredibly unique and amazing here in Washington: a nature preserve in the middle of the city. Parisians and other Europeans city dwellers would kill to have something like this. Europeans are always stunned when the come to Washington and see how "wild" our river banks are.
I already hear the snearing of some readers of this post "the Anacostia, a nature preserve- come on". Really. Walk along the paths by RFK and go to the Heritage Islands in middle of the Anacostia. Go to the Arboretum and the Aquatic gardens. They are filled with beautiful flora, herons, egrets, osprey, bald eagles and many other birds. (It would be great to upload photos w/comments). To pave over these beautiful marshes and replace them with concrete would be criminal.
On paper this plan looks fantastic. But go see for yourselves how amazing this place is right now and how beautiful it would be if it were cleaned it up further and manage as an urban wilderness preserve with parks, bike trails and boat houses.
by PH on Oct 15, 2009 11:53 am
by Zac on Oct 15, 2009 12:02 pm
This flooding has become significantly worse since the 1950s, when effectively the entire river system was redesigned to be its own storm drain. Certainly when the Manzanares or the Tiber or the Ayalon or most other urban arid rivers were channelized (regardless of whether modernism was en vogue at the time, Thayer), they didn't start to behave like the L.A. River does today. It's an exceptionally bad piece of hydrological engineering.
The Tiber does flood. The Seine has flooded to the extent that the water filled the Metro system, and this after the construction of the embankments.
Channelization has precisely one effect on flooding: it makes flooding the problem of someone downstream. That is, provided that upstream channelization hasn't rendered your own flood walls useless.
As a rule, channelized rivers experience higher flood levels than ones free to spread out in their flood plains. Natural and restored floodplains let water move more slowly, spreading flow over a longer period. Channelization upstream does move water more quickly - it concentrates flood peaks, worsening the problem.
by David R. on Oct 15, 2009 12:58 pm
LA boxed the river to control the flash flooding that occurs when it rains there. Having lived there its a frightening thing seeing a trickle of a stream turn into a rolling 20 foot deep torrent that smashes the hillsides.
Are you talking about flash flood and landslide events up in the hills? LA County's response, a more progressive engineering answer, is the exact opposite of channelization. The County builds empty dams to contain water and mud - to HOLD material rather than to move it faster - and has purchased the most vulnerable floodways, forbidding permanent construction there.
Thayer-D:
We might as well say all of the mall destroyed the marshy wetlands it was before L'Enfant first drew up his plan. Save your fire for subdivisions far afield from existing infrastructure that continues to slice up ecosystems we desperatley rely on to live.
You brought up Boston.
The Colonial era city suffered from an exceptionally limited land area. THe city was just a nub approximately the size of Downtown and the North End, tenuously connected to the mainland by a thin neck. It was also a port with a compelling need to increase land adjacent to salt water. And those marshes did present a health problem, because yes, if you use tidal marshes as dumping grounds for garbage and sewage- which is precisely what Boston did - those marshes tend to become public nuisances.
The natural condition of an estuary is not to be clogged with shit. That only happens if a settlement's density exceeds its crude ability to dispose of its own waste.
Tidal marshes are precious, as habitat, as amenities, as filters. I'll say it again: they can only exist in the boundary between fresh water and salt. By building the city, by grooming the edges of the Potomac, we've managed to destroy nearly all of the salt marshes that once were here. And you'd have us fill the rest?
The old excuses no longer apply. It's not 1850, and Washington is not a major port. We've figured out how to dispose of sewage other than piping it directly into the marsh next door, CSOs aside. And there's a whole region to build on.
Save your fire? Why not scream louder about St. Elizabeths, for instance?
by David R. on Oct 15, 2009 1:18 pm
In order to understand the conditions that inspired riverside embankments in these great cities, you have to know what rivers were like then. I've read historical accounts that talk about the Thames blistering paint on ships moored in the Pool of London. The bottom in Boston was, quite literally, a few feet of solidified human waste, garbage, and offal.
by David R. on Oct 15, 2009 1:25 pm
This brings up something I've been thinking about for awhile. The DC area is constrained by the need to occasionally bring large boats to the Navy Yard. This means that there are only two regional bridges across the Potomac/Anacostia downstream of the Navy Yard. What are these boars doing that is so important that it has to add billions to the cost of these bridges and limits connectivity in the region? And can it be moved elsewhere? Couldn't we move these "big ship" projects to Fort Belvoir? Why did BRAC miss that?
by David C on Oct 15, 2009 1:29 pm
by цarьchitect on Oct 15, 2009 2:01 pm
by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2009 2:15 pm
I know the Navy has a bridge height requirement, but at most this is an anachronism. Even if if there was no bridge, the depth is way too shallow to allow pretty much any current Navy ship. It would have to have a draft of around 5 feet!
See: http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12289.shtml
by TimK on Oct 15, 2009 2:32 pm
That said, I do like the idea of more pedestrian-bike-and- transit-focused bridges connecting the two sides of the river. I can see something like this being developed in the area around RFK, eventually. But don't think for a second that local environmentalists would let Kingman Island and surrounding wetlands be completely developed without a long, hard fight. As for Anacostia Park, it's as @Alex B. said: "That park's problem is the connections (or lack thereof) both to the neighborhood and to the other side of the river."
We do need to provide bridges, literal and metaphorical, between the two sides of the river, and some well-planned development is better than a hodgepodge of condos on one side and underutilized, limited access space on the other. I like the vision this plan presents, even as I disagree with some of the specifics. I'd rather see something like this, carefully planned, with adequate green space for recreation and conservation, than just going with the status quo and a hodgepodge of individually planned development projects.
by Grace on Oct 15, 2009 3:18 pm
by David C on Oct 15, 2009 4:27 pm
by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2009 4:34 pm
by David C on Oct 15, 2009 5:22 pm
The Wikipedia article on the bridge says the old bridge (at 50 feet) was raised 260 times a year. They expected that to drop to 60 times a year with the 70 ft clearance. So, take that for what it's worth.
by Alex B. on Oct 15, 2009 5:31 pm
With the bridge in the closed position, the Federal Channel has a vertical clearance of 75 feet (MHW) at the Federal channel edges and 83 feet (MHW) at center channel from the bottom of the northernmost (upstream) steel girder. The navigation light posts hang down five feet from the bottom of the girders. These posts are offset 15' from the centerline of the Federal Channel. Channel width and depth remains unchanged at 175' and 28' (MLW), respectively.
by TimK on Oct 15, 2009 6:41 pm
by jim on Oct 15, 2009 6:49 pm
Sorry Mr Buras, we don't just shaft people like 19th Century France did. Say what you will about our political / civic system but an idea this bad won't go anywhere.
It depresses me that anyone would actually publish this. The only thing innovative about this fantasy is that it brazenly ignores all that we have learned about wetlands and their importance in the past decades, and all the urgency that has emerged to improve the health of the Chesapeake.
Sadly it is not surprising that the plan implies that the welfare of people in Bladensburg, Edmonston, etc., is of no concern. People in that part of PG are apparently invisible to bureaucrats, politicians... and architects.
Other than that, if the city magically gets all this land back from the military (I'm sure the Navy won't care) and the freeways (no big deal there), sure, extend the grid. Does that make me a visionary?
by DavidDuck on Oct 15, 2009 9:28 pm
by Steve on Oct 16, 2009 5:55 pm
by J.D. Hammond on Oct 19, 2009 2:51 pm
by T. Smith on Nov 16, 2009 2:30 pm
by Nathaniel Martin on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 am
What is absurd is the belief that human nature is so malleable that it requires people to live in ugly, poorly built and yes, expensive, experiments.
by Boots on Nov 17, 2009 7:46 am
The simple fact is that Buras is proposing to narrow the river for the sake of narrowing the river. It's a solution looking for a problem, in my mind. That critique says nothing of the style of architecture he has in mind or any of the other planning principles he'd like to see (restoration and extension of the L'Enfant grid/avenues, etc).
by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2009 9:11 am
One of the flaws in both Classical and Modernist philosophies is an assumption that you have to achieve perfect order and perfect consistency at most levels of design. Often, when faced with a complex, fluid situation, both architectures just engineer the hell out of it until it works, rather than making the city or building adapt or respond. That's a generalization, but it's not surprising that a hard line modern and a classicist would both be okay with the narrowing of the river.
Both however, may be wrong.
by Neil Flanagan on Nov 17, 2009 9:42 am
by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 am