Probably the USDOT building shouldn't be considered "new" anymore: it opened in April 2007.

by JD on Nov 21, 2011 2:33 pm • link • report

A ludicrous idea from a newspaper that doesn't know anything about its local community.

by Rich on Nov 21, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report

There are some metro stations that are not easily converted into walkable development along the orange and blue lines. Largo, for example, is all cloverleafs and freeways. Theoretically it could become a walkable urban center, but it would be difficult. It would relieve some strain on L'Enfant Plaza as a transfer point, too.

Another thought: why not build it on a Pentagon lot? If ever there was an anti-urban government fortress, the Pentagon is it. The FBI wouldn't be in Maryland, a drawback, but the Pentagon will always be a dead zone. Better to group the fortresses than spread the damage.

by OctaviusIII on Nov 21, 2011 2:56 pm • link • report

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this, but I think one point people aren't considering is the "center of power" dynamic. Agency heads like being near the center of power and they're frequently the ones deciding where to pursue office space. Especially with a powerful agency like the FBI, I suspect those at the top don't want to be so far away from the rest of the DOJ and the White House.

Also, I'm not sure how it would apply to the FBI, but MD and VA are both in different federal circuits than DC's. There may be advantages from a legal point of view with keeping the headquarters physically in the District.

by TM on Nov 21, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report

I've echoed those very same proposed spots, but I'll add in that it's not *just* an easy bike commute; but also an easy walking commute. From the train's doors to those notated sites is a 13 minute walk (it used to be my commute). It's a bit brutal through a sea of parking, but if the land does redevelop with TOD: the 13 minute walk won't feel like 13 minutes anymore.

One other perk: I think (but can't recall 100%) that the notated sites are also already owned by the Feds. It'd fit well with the security demands of the courthouse and also join the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center's western flank, complementing the Secret Service and NSA on BARC's eastern edge and NGA on BARC's northern edge.

by Bossi on Nov 21, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report

The anti-car people would argue Silver Spring is not 'walkable.' I for one find it plenty walkable

by JessMan on Nov 21, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report

Furthermore, I don't think Greenbelt needs more traffic at rush hour. ESPECIALLY on Edmonston

by JessMan on Nov 21, 2011 3:28 pm • link • report

quibble = USDOT building ALSO has a cafeteria, and a fitness center, as do many other large office buildings. I think the issue is less the facilities in the building(after all workers in buildings with cafeterias still like to vary their lunchtime routines) as it is the archictecture itself and its impact on passing pedestrians. USDOT is far from perferct in that regard, but its better than a fortress

by USDOTquibbler on Nov 21, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report

I think this is a misread of the Post editorial. The Post states that a suburban FBI site should have "better access to Metro" and that PG County has "plenty of available space near Metro stations".

They don't state that the FBI should move on top of the Greenbelt Metro station. They indicate only that the FBI considered a site there.

by Greg on Nov 21, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

I see three Metro-friendly sites for a fortress-like FBI building. In all three cases, the FBI could leverage the existing security features of the neighboring buildings and the natural security features of rivers to seal themselves off while still offering employees a pleasant commute.

1. Pentagon. That wall of highways separating the Pentagon from the community isn't coming down soon because the Pentagon likes it that way. But a fellow impenetrable agency like the FBI would make a great neighbor, making the site even more secure.

2. Arlington Cemetery. The river side of the station, Lady Bird Johnson Park, is such a pedestrian nightmare that an FBI fortress would actually make it friendlier. Since it's an island, it's also very easy to secure.

3. Stadium/Armory. There's a huge triangle-shaped parking lot just south of RFK. One side borders Independence and would need advanced security measures. The other two sides, though, border the limited-access, high-security DC Jail and Hospital complex, and the Anacostia River.

by tom veil on Nov 21, 2011 3:44 pm • link • report

Actually Tom...don't worry about the parking lot. Knock down RFK and build it there.

Two birds with one wrecking ball.

by Michael on Nov 21, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

Does that mean the FBI will pay for a new place for DC United?

by Alex B. on Nov 21, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report

Instead of pushing the FBI to relocate away from a Metro station, why not push the FBI to design a better space that enhances the security of a building without totally sacrificing livability of the surrounding area? For example, landscape designers can use topography adjustments, parks, plazas and other types of greenery to enhance the security of a site while providing a positive benefit to the surrounding area. Speed bumps, winding roadways and narrow paths prevent vehicles from unsafely accelerating near the building, but also calm traffic for pedestrians and cyclists. And although moving a site near a residential or mixed-use area has some security-related drawbacks, it also puts more eyes on the street as informal surveillance to aid in formal security measures.

But instead of emphasizing the importance of good design, this blog post appears to take the dim and almost self-serving view that poor design is to be taken for granted, and so as a result, we should simply push people out to spaces that accommodate or excuse poor design choices. The people who live and work in and around these sites deserve better.

by Scoot on Nov 21, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

Oh god no. Can we please stop thinking of Reservation 13 as a dumping ground for agencies that don't fit in elsewhere? The parking lots/DC General campus already have a plan for development, albeit an imperfect one. Obstacles are financing and government dithering, not finding something to fill the space. We need to engage the Anacostia River better, not create yet another obstacle between residents and the water.

by Tim Krepp on Nov 21, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

What about New Carollton, across from the IRS here:

View Larger Map

by Falls Church on Nov 21, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

Scoot: While your recommendation of how to make a secure building sounds nice (and believe me, I wish that was possible), the FBI wants the equivalent of a modern moat. They want acres and acres of empty space that they can monitor with cameras and have open sightlines from the building. I want that better design as much as you do, but I guarantee you that the securicrat mentality just cannot be overcome in this instance. The FBI is classified as an agency that requires the HIGHEST level of "security" now, meaning that our idea of a secure urbanism won't work for them. They don't negotiate.

Tim: Amen. I wish people wouldn't think of Prince George's as a dumping ground, either.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 21, 2011 4:07 pm • link • report

This is more what we're talking about, folks. LARGE. Not something that will fit on the couple-acre parcels we've been looking at.

View Larger Map

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 21, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report

To build on Geoff's comment, the optimal solution would be a urban friendly design for a downtown FBI building. It's not impossible to tweak the Hoover building to incorporate that goal.

But I'm not eager to care more about good urban design than the FBI. If that's not something they want to accommodate, then they should explore more exurban options, especially with communities that feel that the jobs in their area are worth the security trade offs.

In short, if they want to stay and work with DC to be good neighbors, we should work with them. If not, I wish them good luck.

by Tim Krepp on Nov 21, 2011 4:16 pm • link • report

@Alex: Depends on if United is still playing there when they decide to rebuild. Given the glacial speeds at which this is going to take...I'm sure the Baltimore United will have a new home before the FBI.

by Michael on Nov 21, 2011 4:17 pm • link • report

Loving Octavius' idea of building it on one of the Pentagon's parking lots. Maybe they could create a building in the shape of an antiparallelogram to form around the different lots.

by Shipsa01 on Nov 21, 2011 4:23 pm • link • report

Maybe what's needed is a shift in the paradigm of how the FBI -- and similar, security-oriented agencies that require acres of empty space and moat-like defenses, like DHS -- are managed.

What percentage of the thousands of employees at FBI HQ really need to be colocated with the top management officials who need access to the President, Attorney General, etc.? 20% 25%? If senior management really wants to occupy a prime location in the heart of DC or adjacent to scarce, TOD-friendly resources, they ought to enter the modern age of robust electronic communications and inexpensive air travel (for the occasional requirement of face-to-face meetings).

Decentralizing a portion of the HQ personnel away from DC could save money, improve security, and spare us from yet another huge, neighborhood-unfriendly, megafortress in the heart of the region.

by Arl Anon on Nov 21, 2011 4:25 pm • link • report

@ Geoffrey ... I just think the way the blog post was written -- simply shrugging off that a better design is impossible without considering the middle ground -- is incompatible with a lot of the perspectives that have come out of this blog in the few years that I've been following it. Federal sites take up a big chunk of land and tend to have a huge influence on how people live and travel in this region. More attention should be devoted to their design. After all, this blog proposes a lot of design alternatives for other spaces without considering the impossibility of those designs coming to fruition.

by Scoot on Nov 21, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report

@Greg:
It is not a misread of the Post's editorial. It's true that Greenbelt is not set in stone. I just used that as an example because it's come up before and was mentioned in the editorial.

But what the Post calls for is "a campus-style site — think of the CIA, but with better access to mass transit". And the editorial all but says that the only place to put it is Prince George's County. At a Metro station.

What this post argues is that a "campus-style" site is prima facie incompatible with the efficient use of space that we should seek out for our Metro stations.

@Scoot:

Instead of pushing the FBI to relocate away from a Metro station, why not push the FBI to design a better space that enhances the security of a building without totally sacrificing livability of the surrounding area?

That is precisely what I'm calling for. I would be absolutely fine with having the FBI at Greenbelt (or any other station site) if they would build a structure like NOAA's or USDOT's and allow themselves to be surrounded by a mixed-use development.

I seriously doubt that the FBI would even consider doing that, though. And if they insist on building a campus at a Metro station, that's where the objection lies.

The "if" is the key word. Let me re-state this paragraph from my original post:

The FBI is probably unwilling to build the kind of federal office site that is necessary to creating a better urban place. And if they can't fit their complex into that kind of place, it doesn't need to be built on top of Metro.

by Matt Johnson on Nov 21, 2011 4:30 pm • link • report

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from being a Fed myself is that under the law the government cannot provide shuttle service for its employees to use for commutes. They can provide shuttles to go between buildings for work purposes, but actualyl getting to work is entirely the meployees repsonsibility.

While it may not be ideal in terms of using space next to a metro station, that still amy be better than the alternative of providing lots of parking and having the majority of the people drive.

by nathaniel on Nov 21, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report

@nathaniel:
I don't know if that's the case, but it wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

Prince George's County currently runs an express bus from Greenbelt to NASA Goddard to New Carrollton, and those are the only stops (except for one pair of stops on Cipriano Road). It's basically a shuttle exclusively for NASA employees and visitors. I'm sure the county would be happy to serve the FBI. They might even be able to reroute the 15X (NASA) bus to also serve an FBI site on Cherrywood Lane.

by Matt Johnson on Nov 21, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report

Two points:

- Just because workers in Suitland don't "need to leave until quitting time" doesn't mean that that's the case. At least 3 times a month, we have folks from our office going out into town to grab lunch for the group. Heck, today we had a "command lunch" in Clinton.

- Moreso for Matt/Bossi: the eastern of the two "better FBI sites" is actually within the Agricultural Research Center, so that site is pretty much out. That said, I think Geoff is correct in what the FBI is probably thinking of...something not unlike the CIA. Or, worse yet, the NSA.

by Froggie on Nov 21, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

@nathaniel: not true. For example, at Suitland we have a shuttle that runs between the Metro station and the various buildings on the Suitland Federal Center...granted it's outside the gate at ONI/NMIC (which has its own fence within the fenced Suitland compound), but stops right in front of the NOAA building.

DOD is also subsidizing both a DASH express bus between King St Metro and Mark Center (the AT 2X) and a WMATA express bus between the Pentagon and Mark Center (Metrobus 7M).

by Froggie on Nov 21, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report

From the projects I've worked on: it is possible for Feds to pay for off-site shuttle service; but it comes out of a different pot of money... which means having to get that new pot of money requires its own set of efforts and bureaucracy. It's possible but requires a strong will to do so from the site itself, DoD, and potentially any applicable Congressional committees.

by Bossi on Nov 21, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report

I would reconsider the premise that the FBI even needs to be treated differently than other agencies due to "security." Back in the day, the FBI was a proud public institution that welcomed guests: the courtyard was open to the public, the "moat" was filled with trees, the sidewalks were free of bulky planters (yet welcomed a mailbox and bus stop, since removed), the curbs were open for public parking and their free public tour was the 3rd-most-popular tour in the city. Because of the special role the FBI plays in the public, because of the intrusive legal tools they have available, it is important they remain accountable and transparent, and their architecture should represent those strengths. Hiding their campus away from the public would be fraught with the wrong symbolism. And there is another symbolic benefit to having them across from DOJ headquarters, their parent agency, and the building that housed J Edgar Hoover's original office.

by YouStreet on Nov 21, 2011 5:24 pm • link • report

@Tim

The current FBI building is spatially inefficient and a maintenance nightmare. Even if it did meet the FBI's security needs, it is not a suitable candidate for renovation.

@Matt Johnson

The reason the Post editorial calls for a PG location is because if you consider the three main requirements the FBI has (1. needing a lot of space, far more than their current downtown location has; 2. needing good transit access via metro as per GSA guidance; and 3. needing the most stringent security requirements), the only plausible locations are suburban, and the vast majority would be in Prince George's.

Personally, I think the security requirements (stand-off distances, etc) are over the top, but fighting that fight is a losing cause. It's never going to be truly urban. Maybe ATF-ish is the best case scenario.

Likewise, insisting that it not use an existing Metro station is counter-productive in my mind. Those of us with a regional mindset blast BRAC's decision making process for moving jobs into secure sites away from transit, yet then flip this around and say 'yeah, but not THAT transit stop.' Major jobs centers like this need to be linked to transit. The Pentagon isn't much in terms of urbanism, but it's well linked by transit and is a major job center - enough that spillover demand from contractors helped fuel Crystal City and Pentagon City.

The campus might not be the ideal built form for a Metro station, that's true. But you could do a lot worse than dropping 17,000 jobs on top of one.

by Alex B. on Nov 21, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report

Ultimately, there are some employers that a) need good metro access, but b) need anti-urban fortification. What metro stations lend themselves to addressing both concerns? Most stations are perfectly capable of becoming walkable, urban centers, but some aren't.

The only two I can see are Pentagon, Largo and Arlington; Matt mentioned four others a bit ago, although even they have more of a chance than Pentagon. We oughtn't let our desire for urbanism get in the way of the other great benefit of transit: getting cars off the roads.

by OctaviusIII on Nov 21, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report

What if the Census Bureau and the FBI switched buildings? (although I am all for knocking the FBI building down if possible)

by grumpy on Nov 21, 2011 5:42 pm • link • report

grumpy: I would LOVE to move downtown. You are a genius! :)

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 21, 2011 5:44 pm • link • report

I am sick of all the federal agencies being banished out to the middle of nowhere. Has the FBI outgrown the Hoover Building? Yes. Do they need to move to a sprawling campus at some greenfield site? Absolutely not. That's the sort of thing that has been ruining the Metro area for years.

One of the best things about the FBI building is that it is downtown, it's easy to get to, it doesn't have a sea of parking surrounding it. And that is why they attract the best and the brightest over several other agencies.

I say keep it in the District of Columbia. Perhaps the old DC General plot, or squeeze it into that fortress they are constructing at St Elizabeth's. Or how about some of that grossly underutilized land on Bolling AFB?

by Dave Murphy on Nov 21, 2011 6:36 pm • link • report

@Matt Johnson:

"It is not a misread of the Post's editorial. It's true that Greenbelt is not set in stone. I just used that as an example because it's come up before and was mentioned in the editorial.

But what the Post calls for is "a campus-style site — think of the CIA, but with better access to mass transit". And the editorial all but says that the only place to put it is Prince George's County. At a Metro station."

I'm not really sure if this matters, but this kind of felt like an exaggerated response to the Post editorial to me, too. I'm not sure what the editorial authors were thinking, but it certainly wouldn't be hard to build something with better access to transit than the CIA HQ. Just avoid putting it in McLean, a long bus ride from pretty much anywhere, and you've accomplished that.

by Gray on Nov 21, 2011 7:16 pm • link • report

I think Matt overstates the Post's phrasing. The editorial reads: "Prince George’s County, which has plenty of available space near Metro stations, is one obvious place to look."

That's a far cry from saying PG is the only place.

by Alex B. on Nov 21, 2011 7:47 pm • link • report

The FBI has newly built a satellite office building in Prince William County, just west of Manassas, near the George Mason University Prince William County campus. There's little close to it on the west side of the Prince William County Parkway so it could easily be expanded to become the central FBI office complex. VRE intends to build a station nearby as part of its Haymarket/Gainesville expansion. In conjunction with the FBI migration, the Federal Government could expedite the VRE expansion and add shuttle service between the Innovation station and the new FBI campus, which would provide motivation for reverse peak VRE operations, too. We should not necessarily plan based on existing transit.

by jim on Nov 21, 2011 7:52 pm • link • report

PTO in Alexandria is a large federal agency developed as the centerpiece for a large mixed use development on METRO. It's completely possible to do the FBI this was as well where ever they put it.

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 21, 2011 8:10 pm • link • report

...construct a new FBI this WAY as well. PTO at Eisenhower Ave is ginormous, but the 5 buildings are broken up by a street grid, the garages are tucked behind the buildings.

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 21, 2011 8:15 pm • link • report

for anyone not familiar with the layout of PTO, which houses about 10,000 employees, here is the site.

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 21, 2011 8:19 pm • link • report

http://maps.google.com/maps?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=pto+alexandria&fb=1&gl=us&hq=pto&hnear=0x89b64d3e93a4abf1:0xd7f52686dbc1012c,Alexandria,+VA&ei=HffKTombHsnm0QGdi9j_Dw&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&ved=0CAYQtgM

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 21, 2011 8:19 pm • link • report

stevek_fairfax: While it would be fantastic if the FBI would do such a thing, they are wholly uninterested in doing so. They want setbacks of over 100 feet from the street. They want acres of open land around their buildings.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 21, 2011 8:21 pm • link • report

I'm sure the answer is no, but does Boiling really need all that space or could they consolidate some and have the FBI develop a campus on the north side?

I don't see any good/practical options for the FBI. They want 100 foot setbacks but I'm sure they would regret being a 40 min trip from the Whitehouse if they moved out to the edge of the beltway. The Pentagon location would be interesting, but do you really want so many critical facilities so close together?

I'm completely against a move to Stadium Armory, that would be a total waste of prime real estate.

by Nicoli on Nov 21, 2011 8:46 pm • link • report

Oh and one last thing, they should put an Eataly or a WF in whatever building replaces the Hoover building. That would put it walking distance to my work, which would be awesome.

by Nicoli on Nov 21, 2011 8:53 pm • link • report

Poplar Point sure looks like a good candidate to me.

by Sivad on Nov 21, 2011 8:54 pm • link • report

Can I just jump in to say that the FBI is not a branch of the military, and that it would be grossly inappropriate to put the new HQ on a military base, or on a DOD site.

by andrew on Nov 21, 2011 11:38 pm • link • report

Instead of creating one mega castle out in the middle of nowhere, a symbol of the proud american open democracy, why not use an alternate security system...decentralization?

50 downtown buildings, each holding small amounts of personal. Connected with the highest technology systems that make communication seamless.

The mysterious boogy man takes out office 24...and well, not a big deal, the other 49 offices are intact.

by JJJJJ on Nov 21, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report

Gee willikers! Matt seems to be suggesting the FBI HQ in Greenbelt should be built---according to his arrows---on wetlands.

GreaterButNotGreenerWashington?

by ReallyReally? on Nov 22, 2011 12:22 am • link • report

JJJJJ: Decentralization is problematic for any organization, especially one that needs to be as interconnected as the FBI.
andrew: Putting it on the Pentagon site is just one idea for a fortress. I'd forgotten about St. Elizabeth's, but that would be better considering the civilian security synergies. I do think that the Pentagon parking lots are a gross waste of space next to one of the biggest transit centers in the region, and they should enter into any discussion of intrinsically anti-urban office projects.

by OctaviusIII on Nov 22, 2011 1:27 am • link • report

Has anyone mentioned - "Hey, maybe FBI's grown too big and we should shrink it."

by Andrew in DC on Nov 22, 2011 9:04 am • link • report

@OctaviusIII: Decentralization is problematic for any organization, especially one that needs to be as interconnected as the FBI. This is the same excuse managers throughout government (and other large bureaucratic entities) use all the time to thwart programs like telecommuting that we need to implement much more widely for a variety of reasons. And there's a grain of truth in it. But there's much more truth in the observation that "interconnecting" is used as an excuse because managers resist change that makes them uncomfortable and are unwilling to adapt, learn, and implement effective management strategies for out-of-the-office workers.

The FBI manages to effectively pursue investigations all across the United States from 50 or more field offices and to run inter-office and inter-agency task forces that are usually highly effective, even though the members are not in one place. Could the FBI move its HR, EEO, and Finance functions to Cleveland without impairing its effectiveness? Could it put the cyber and intelligence divisions into separate buildings downtown without impairing its effectiveness? Would management resent losing the visibility of a high-profile fortress that can showcase the "FBI brand" on the news, TV shows, movies and video games?

by Arl Anon on Nov 22, 2011 9:17 am • link • report

I think if there's already a large site in Prince William County and the FBI needs space and security, than that is the best site to build the new HQ.

by Vik on Nov 22, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

I agree with Dave Murphy's comments above. There is no need to relocate the FBI outside of DC. Many sites would be suitable and it DOES NOT need to be a fortress. Good grief...we have made DC too much of a fortress now.

by Pelham1861 on Nov 22, 2011 1:48 pm • link • report

@andrew: but there is precedent. Remember that the FBI Academy is located at Marine Corps Base Quantico.

by Froggie on Nov 22, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report

Forgot to mention another example: the FAA has a regional air traffic control center located on a Naval Air Station in Mississippi.

by Froggie on Nov 22, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

the larger conversation that needs to be broached is not only "why have all federal agencies in DC?", but why do they have to even be in the metro area? The FBI could be in Saint Louis, or if they need to be within a 2 hour drive of Washington, how about Richmond? Why go through the trouble of pleading for road and transit upgrades to a new site, when, around the country cities with excess transportation infrastructure would DIE to land a 17,000 job facility?

by stevek_fairfax on Nov 22, 2011 8:41 pm • link • report

So, I'm unclear as to why the FBI building needs to be a fortress. Other than the movie Arlington Road, has there ever been an attack on an FBI facility anywhere? There are more attacks on High Schools and Luby's than the FBI. This facility would be more secure than the Marine Barracks.

But if they must move, and must build a Fort, I would recommend the same site I recommended for the DHS HQ - the old Coast Guard HQ and the property north of it.

by David C on Nov 22, 2011 9:53 pm • link • report

Dave C: where is the old Coast Guard HQ located?

by Shipsa01 on Nov 22, 2011 10:56 pm • link • report

Buzzard Point. It may not be old yet now that I think about it, but the new CG HQ is being built now.

by David C on Nov 22, 2011 11:23 pm • link • report

Bring it out here to Fort Meade - there is the old DC youth corrections joint across the street from NSA that could house them nicely, with good access to MARC.

Or, I'll bet you can find space for them on the Federal Center in Suitland.

by Ryan S on Nov 23, 2011 12:00 am • link • report

I for one would welcome a move to anywhere by the FBI, would finally give the National Archives across the street a place to build an additional facility, as Archives I, Archives II in College Park are at capacity. Being able to make millions of pages of documents available to the public now sitting in storage facilites would be good for all.

by Ray B on Nov 23, 2011 8:44 am • link • report

Matt, your analysis is right on. The problem is the proposed scale, along with the security crazyness. Creating one huge complex as the FBI's permanent all-in-one headquarters would draw employment from the DC core out to the exurbs, bypassing the in-between suburbs like Greenbelt.

Better to maintain FBI headquarters downtown, with satellite offices at suburban metro stops as needed. That way any FBI official who ever wants to get promoted to headquarters won't move from close-in areas out to the exurbs of southern MD, Howard county etc. They'll stay put where they are, just in case.

And as a Greenbelt resident, a huge FBI campus/parking complex at Greenbelt station would be a disastrous wasted opportunity for the city. We need mixed use urban development, not an expansive parking oriented, drive-to office only complex.

This scale of development would just put more pressure on roads outward from DC -- 201, 95, BW Parkway. The idea that putting a huge employment facility at the end of a metro line in Prince George's will spark lots of reverse commuting is unlikely I think. Maybe aittle local residency< but i doubt it. This would be treated as a sterile edge city development by employees. It wouldn't matter if it were at the metro station or not -- most would still drive to work on the Beltway.

FBI should tear down and rebuilt their downtown headquarters, and then build smaller, community friendly office sites at various metro accessible locations around the area as needed. A smaller satellite office building at one of the sites you suggest would be fine.

by Jeff on Nov 25, 2011 8:19 pm • link • report

What about building a new FBI building on an island or some isolated piece of land in DC, Maryland or Virginia and then just build a spur lightrail, streetcar or metrorail station to the place with this as the final destination so anyone going there has a reason.

East Potomac Park Golf Course, Bolling AFB, Rooselvt Island, Kingman Island, Walter Reed, CIA, Ft. McNair, Andrews AFB all seem like good isolated places to build a new hq at.

by kk on Nov 26, 2011 10:33 am • link • report

What about the old NGA site by Sibley?

by mike on Nov 29, 2011 12:04 am • link • report

The fact that the FBI continues to get bigger and bigger shows we ignored President Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation warning us to be vigilant about the usurpation of democratic power by the military industrial complex. We don't need ever larger political police forces, the legitimate functions they have do not require ever increasing budgets.

I'm glad Guantanamo concentration camp now has some wind turbines to provide some of its electricity, but the real issue is what the camp is doing. Same with a new, larger FBI complex - the real concern is not which forest gets leveled for its new hypersecurity parking lot, but the contempt for civil liberties that it represents.

by Mark on Dec 1, 2011 6:12 am • link • report

I have a thought--now hang on as it may be a bit out of the box.

What if the FBI building were demolished, and in its place we built a new, modern LEED certified building with expanded capacity that could house all staff and keep the location at exactly the same place.

If not, another option would be to totally tear down and renovate the hideous L'Enfant Plaza area...there is tons of unused open space that could be re-purposed into LEED buildings and could be used more efficiently to house many more staff as needed. Heck, you could combine the existing gov offices in L'Enfant w/the FBI and put them all close by and easily accessible by metro at L'Enfant (since there is already a metro stop there).

Oh wait, why don't we do that? Cause nobody wants to spend the money---oops.

by LuvDusty on Dec 1, 2011 11:47 am • link • report

Well, demolishing and rebuilding on site would not only take about a decade but it would be insanely expensive and in that time the FBI would have to find other places anyway.

Other than that...

by Michael on Dec 1, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report

Langley in Northern Virginia would be an excellent spot for the FBI -particularly the same campus that the CIA is based in. I also am not averse to it moving next to the National Counter-Terrorism Center in McLean, Virginia.

by John M on Dec 2, 2011 8:10 pm • link • report

Also, I never liked the FBI being in its current location -better that a five-star hotel replace it.

by John M on Dec 2, 2011 8:14 pm • link • report

One way to give the FBI the campus like security they desire and keep the agency in the city and help rebuid the community would be to put the FBI on the old Walter Reed Campus.

by Steward on Jan 11, 2012 8:37 am • link • report