Comments on Poplar Point planners present possibilities - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Bianchi

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:59:42 EDT

Laurence, thank you for that historic perspective. I agree that creating opportunities for people to appreciate the river can engender support for initiatives to protect it/restore it (or any river) in the long run.

Squalish, i certainly understand and accept the concepts/principals you described; meeting demand and reducing housing prices overall coupled with creating housing where the people already are (TOD). I know you can't answer this but why do we still have idiotic projects like the ICC and the plans for outer MoCo that DA has been writing about? Is the ghost of Spiro Agnew running things? (obscene corruption among the decision makers)

Polly, generally I absolutely support the perspectives expressed by this blog that the best place to create more housing is where infrastructure already exists and increasing access to mass transit for both intra- and intercity travel are among the best environmental policies we can support. I don't think this perspective is naive. It is mine afterall.

Comment by Squalish

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:34:31 EDT

Bianchi -
Will it make a difference? Certainly. Will it make a difference that you can point to as a direct cause-and-effect relationship? Probably not.

Ideally if you want to prevent what Polly suggests (where X farmers want to sell Y farms to developers, however big or small the lots) people would vote up concepts like agricultural preserves around cities. Absent that, meeting the demand for housing close-in and reducing prices overall just makes it a little easier for all involved to decide against expanding sprawl onto farms, a little easier to decide for more transit and against expanding roads and to reduce their footprint on the environment, a little easier to keep things as they are over the ten thousand square miles that exurbs are being considered for DC.

Polly -
How in the world can anything that reduces the asphalt per capita in a human development increase the heat island effect? I think you have to define what you mean by "environmentally desirable." A neighborhood-scale leafy aesthetic that you find desirable rarely shares many aspects with a regional push to preserve natural environments or a global attempt to improve the sustainability of the human settlement of Earth... unless it's just one small part of a plan that reduces car use by increasing density, walkability, and transit.

Comment by Laurence Aurbach

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:33:18 EDT

Most of the Anacostia riverfront has been irreversibly altered over the centuries, starting with large scale deforestation and tobacco farming in the 18th century. Poor land conservation practices caused massive erosion, which drained into the Anacostia and silted up the entire river. Bladensburg used to be a major port that could handle oceangoing ships; by 1800 it was completely silted in and the port shut down.

Same thing happened to the Navy Yard, which was the nation's premier shipbuilding facility when it was founded in 1799. The Anacostia channel at that time was 25-30 feet deep. By the mid-1800's, the ships that were built in the Yard were running aground on sand bars. After the 1880's the Yard ceased all shipbuilding activities and was dedicated to gun manufacture.

So there's nothing "natural" about the lower Anacostia. Even if it is completely cleaned of toxics (and I hope it will be), it will have no resemblance to its pre-Colonial condition.

In terms of ecological impacts, engineers have the techniques to develop dense blocks that maintain and potentially improve on existing stormwater and runoff impacts. A better-distributed network of more numerous, smaller parks would help with that.

The long term plan for the Anacostia is to preserve the river banks in a "natural" state with recreational trails. I support that concept generally, but there is also a great need for limited portions of the river to be intensely developed. The DC area only has a few good urban waterfronts - Georgetown, Alexandria and National Harbor. Good urban waterfronts bring people to the river in droves, create recreational opportunities, and stimulate business.

Most importantly, good urban waterfronts encourage people to enjoy the city and connect with the river. That's how people develop bonds and become a dedicated interest group for protecting and improving the Anacostia River. If the whole river is buffered in recreational parks, it remains less visible and far fewer people develop strong feelings about the health of the river.

Comment by Polly

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:29:48 EDT

Bianchi, I think that you have accurately captured one of the main reasons why residents of DC's walkable neighborhoods are concerned about the naÃ¯ve application of "smart growth" principles. Some "smart growth" advocates support more density in DC's walkable neighborhoods, including replacing parks and recreational space with high rise buildings, claiming that it is necessary to preserve open space far from those homes. The "smart growth" advocates claim that these policies are environmentally desirable.

Yet, the advocates of this policy cannot provide any link between eliminating parks and lower-density development in DC and their claimed environmental benefits. It is just as likely, perhaps more likely, that this will simply allow for larger lot sizes in affluent single-family neighborhoods or sprawl in outer suburbs as you describe. But it is certain, that these policies will increase the heat island effect, and make DC's walkable neighborhoods less attractive, especially to families.

And this is compounded by pairing the "environmental" argument for more density with advocating the development of precisely the type of buildings that Jane Jacobs argues remove activity from the streets, replacing it with vertical activity, as residents of the new high rise buildings, both office and residential, find their amenities within their own complex.

I hope that you and others will continue to explore and discuss the implicit and explicit assumptions that are necessary to reach the policy recommendations supported in this blog.

Comment by Bianchi

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:34:07 EDT

Squalish, thanks for reply. I'm open to new information, and adjusting accordingly. I agree none of the plans is worse then whats there. I however would want to see it (the river bank) restored / improved, not just something equivalent re: river's health. Does the plan really have to include paving up to the bank? I know you know the importance of a green berm next to a body of water, even 20'. Regarding building next to metro to save something farther out; I embrace this goal and philosophy. It's just that I see the plans for upper MoCo, the ICC, etc., etc. etc. and wonder -what the hell? What i see is a river that doesn't already have crap built right up next to it (and/or the opportunity to remove what is there) and I wonder why we have to build like that right up to the river in order to achieve the TOD. Because the pattern of destruction (of those places "farther out") seems to be going fullforce at full velocity, will compromises like building up on this river at this time make a difference in that pattern? I'm skeptical. Maybe we'll lose everything - the greenfields farther out and an opportunity to restore, at least partly, this stretch of the Anacostia's bank.

Comment by Daniel

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:42:06 EDT

I agree with Cavan, 70 acres is way too much.

Ideally, I'd rather see a couple small to medium sized parks mixed in the neighborhood. Something similar to the Georgetown waterfront park next to the Anacostia, with dense buildings nearby would also be great. Even with room for the two monuments I'd guess that it wouldn't total more than 15 or 20 acres of parkland.

Since this area realistically won't completed for many years, maybe they could leave the 70 acres for now. Don't develop them as parkland and work on getting permission to build on them in time for the completion of the first phase.

Comment by Sgc

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:12:50 EDT

I give you that. But I take his point that the wrong development will almost certainly involve public money and accomplish not much, and that's certainly not what we're going for.

Comment by Squalish

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:14:57 EDT

Bianchi, three things:
1) I don't think any of these plans would be much worse than what currently exists, with mowed areas or roads blocking off contiguous habitats and chunks of pavement-cruft everywhere.
2) For every acre you 'save' for thickets here, you lose a hundred in areas that are more natural to auto-dependent sprawl. For every Metro station you surround with parks, you lose one that would have been constructed if Metro were more cost-efficient at inducing growth. For every potential new development you lose here, another one pops up halfway to Richmond.
3) "The River's Shore" is a nebulous concept. While a band of wetland *could* be much better protected, for it to make a difference to the health of the river it has to occur all along the river and particularly at the major tributary entrances, not just in one area cut off from the water that has become swampy because the engineers that graded it fifty years ago didn't create proper drainage. The river itself won't easily adopt any wetlands to natural creation-destruction cycles here without the removal of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge.

Comment by Bianchi

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:32:16 EDT

for the health of the river any building, paving, etc. right up the water is very bad. The shoreline building/paving at Baltimores inner harbor, Georgetown, SW, the SE navy yard etc. were all done > 100 years ago, in which time our knowledge of ecosystems has greatly increased. The park has been neglected and abused for years, but that's not an excuse for causing more damage to the river. For any one who's concerned at all about the health of the river, a plan to clean up the current contamination on the land and protect the rivers' shore from further paving-over is the only acceptable plan.

"The wetlands, meadows, scrub-shrub areas and willow thickets of Poplar Point provide important habitat for a diversity of plants and animal life." NPS

Comment by Cavan

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:08:14 EDT

Yeah, keep soccer fans' tax dollars away from Anacostia. After all, who needs a Bright Shiny Object that will bring in people, revenue, and social standing to an area that needs all three. While you're at it, go get in a contest with Prince George's over who can more quickly turn a serious proposal that would make sense to study into a rallying point for cheap political grandstanding. Because cheap political grandstanding is more important than actually studying something to see if it's sound policy.

As for stuff that actually makes sense... Option 2 is the least lousy. David is spot on in his idea about a hybrid between options 2 and 3. Maybe there could be a plan that would break up the parkland into a variety of smaller parks that will be distributed across the neighborhoods so the mega-parks won't be as mega. I think it's important to have the mega-parks be on the waterfront. There is something alluring about a waterfront park. Just look at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore and the SW DC plans.

I have to wonder where the 70 acres came from. Did the NPS just pull it out of there behinds? That's valuable real estate that the city could collect tax money on. Something tells me that the NPS won't get the funding to properly maintain those mega-parks. So an opportunity for a Bright Shiny Object that attracts new positive attention will become an object of scorn and derision. Wow. It's amazing that a once-in-a-lifetime can't-miss opportunity is going to be blown by an amazing series of unfortunate (as in clueless and incompetent) events that hinge on a lack of understanding about planning.

Comment by Vik

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:40:07 EDT

Yeah, don't bring jobs, money or tourists/fans to Anacostia. Keep that west of the river.

It's a good thing that the DC United is trying to get a soccer stadium at Poplar Point again.

I'm with David though, I like a combination of 2 and 3. I'm actually not too bothered by open space requirements though, it just depends on how it's managed.

Comment by carol

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:57:59 EDT

no soccer stadium. we don't play or follow soccer in anacostia. put the soccer stadium in rock creek park near adams morgan where people who play and follow soccer live.

Comment by Bianchi

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:21 EDT

Isn't Poplar Point part of the Anancostia National Park? Wasn't ANP dedicated as a forect preserve at the same time as Rock Creek Park?

Comment by Paul

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:07:53 EDT

There's still too much "open space" but it seems we're stuck with that, thanks to the "open space" fetishists at the Park Service. If there's one thing the Anacostia doesn't lack, it's "open space", mostly of the poorly-designed and even more poorly maintained Park Service variety. Central Park it isn't.

Comment by w

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:14:59 EDT

despite what some people may believe- the Navy Yard- and the Naval District of Washington, DC, has very specific requirements for all bridges where clearance is needed for naval vessel access- and this is still a concern as the Navy Yard is still active- although not in it's former capacity.

...what is puzzling about this is the lack of dredging maintenance that has left the Anacostia- which was once a deep water port , very shallow and un-navigable in the important areas leading to the Yard.

My understanding is that the river has one of the highest measured PCB levels in the subsurface deposits that has ever been encountered- and the Environmental Protection Agency is scared to upset these toxic areas as it might endanger fishing and shellfish regions further downstream in the Chesapeake.

These PCBs resulted from the heavy steel casting operations at the former Naval Gun factory, and also from the PEPCO plant up at Bladensburg Road.

Comment by Phil Lepanto

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:23:46 EDT

Maybe I should have looked more closely, but wouldn't the Pedestrian Bridge also be required to have enough clearance to allow boats underneath the way other Anacostia bridges do.. something about the Anacostia being considered a navigable river by the Coast Guard?

Comment by William

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:23:06 EDT

You are forgetting the soccer stadium. There needs to be a soccer stadium there.

Comment by NikolasM

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:16:02 EDT

I like the unique playground in option 3. I would love to see more of those throughout the city/region.

Comment by Reid

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:49:11 EDT

Those look good. I just hope whatever memorials we get aren't in the mold of the outdoor museum memorial like the FDR one. It takes way too much space and lacks aesthetic beauty, in my opinion. What's wrong with a good old fashion statue or triumphal arch?