Greater Greater Washington

Development


NCPC worries about viewsheds in waterfront development

Thrusday's National Capital Planning Commission meeting will consider a project along the Anacostia waterfront between the 11th Street bridges and the CSX railroad. Staff have objected to closing parts of "paper street" segments of Virginia Avenue, M Street, and 14th Street, SE.

The project, at 1333 M Street, SE, would build a large hotel and office building with ground-floor retail in the triangular area east of the 11th Street bridges and south of the CSX tracks along the Anacostia River. There would be a plaza on the river side of the building, with stairs down to another, lower plaza near the water's edge.


Rendering of the proposed project. Image from NCPC.

Virginia Avenue and 14th Street, SE pass through the site as "paper streets," not actually constructed or used as streets, but still part of the L'Enfant Plan. Part of Virginia Avenue would become a driveway to the project, and the portion farther east would be part of the plaza, not used as a street but kept as open space. Likewise, 14th Street, which was interrupted by the Southeast Freeway and CSX tracks, would stay as open space, but with a pedestrian bridge connecting the buildings on each side.


Ground floor plan for the proposed project. Image from NCPC.

According to the NCPC report, DC worked out this deal with Cohen Companies (which owns the project) as part of a settlement over another lawsuit concerning the Southwest Waterfront. If the project doesn't win necessary approvals, that settlement becomes void and Cohen can continue to pursue damages in the Southwest case.

The DC Historic Preservation Review Board approved the project and the formal closing of Virginia Avenue, 14th Street, and a small strip of M Street, provided that development doesn't encroach on protected viewsheds. The question is how wide to keep the streets' viewsheds: the original L'Enfant width or something narrower?

The L'Enfant Plan set aside very wide spaces for streets. Those "streets" are much wider than the actual roadways we have today; for many neighborhoods, they span the distance from the buildings on one side to the other, including the front yards, sidewalks, and tree box areas.

The "streets" are narrower in certain spots, however. Two triangular federal "reservations" make up the western and eastern ends of the planned buildings, and another one is part of the plaza. These reservations are areas set aside from the L'Enfant plan and have variously become triangular parks or buildings. Just like Farragut and McPherson Squares cut into the K Street right-of-way, making the street narrower in those areas, these reservations partly occupy the right-of-way for M and Virginia.

As a result, the remaining Virginia Avenue and M Street right-of-way are narrower next to the reservations than elsewhere. Cohen appears to have the right to develop on the reservations, meaning that at most, any viewshed would only be the width of the narrower part of the "streets."

However, the NCPC staff report argues that there should be no development on any of the right-of-way for the streets, even where the right-of-way is wider than adjacent to the reservations. This would prohibit building even along the stretches which don't actually maintain any viewsheds due to the developed reservations.


Right-of-way for Virginia Avenue (blue), M Street (purple) and 14th Street (green). Image via NCPC.

Complicating this is a legal dispute between DC and the federal government about an existing law that says DC may sell off these reservations. The law says,

Where title to the street or alley, of which all or part is to be closed, can reasonably be determined to be held by the United States or the District, the Council may dispose of the property to the best advantage of the District and may assess the fair market value of the land and the value of the District's improvements on the land to the person(s) to whom the title to the land is to vest. Any money received for land where the title was held by the United States shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the United States.
In a 1986 case, Techworld v. D.C. Preservation League over the closing of 8th Street, NW where it now passes between the Techworld buildings south of Mount Vernon Square, a court ruled for DC but the case was then settled. NCPC staff still feel that DC does not have the right to sell these portions of streets. The staff report also objects to the bridge over 14th Street.

If DC's right to sell the reservations is valid, as it appears so far to be, then banning development on adjacent parts of the Virginia Avenue and M Street right-of-way doesn't actually protect any viewsheds. More importantly, there isn't much of a view to protect here. Virginia Avenue just turns into railroad tracks and a freeway, and 14th runs into the huge retaining walls between the tracks and the freeway.

The L'Enfant Plan's vistas are important where those vistas actually exist. They don't here, and even if the infrastructure one day went away somehow, they still wouldn't. Nevertheless, this plan still preserves the vistas by maintaining a clear right-of-way for all of the original L'Enfant streets. The only question is how wide that right-of-way needs to be.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Screw the NCPC. There. I said it. Sorry Mr. Acosta, your agency is a relic and it needs to go. Move out of the way or get run over.

by Adam L on May 4, 2010 4:10 pm • linkreport

The Virginia Avenue axis is aligned with the Washington Monument. I'm not sure if the terrain makes it visible from that point, though. I tried to look on Google streetview, but a small grove of trees blocks what would be the view to the Monument. Where those trees cleared, are you sure there would be no view of the Monument?

by Eric F. on May 4, 2010 4:10 pm • linkreport

I think the freeway would block any views, since there's a big grade change between here and the freeway. However, even if that went away, they are keeping a Virginia Avenue right-of-way open, just possibly not as wide as the original.

by David Alpert on May 4, 2010 4:17 pm • linkreport

How does this fit in with the plans to rebuild the adjacent CSX tunnel?

by goldfish on May 4, 2010 4:21 pm • linkreport

This is not adjacent to the portion of the CSX tracks that are in the tunnel. Here, the tracks are on the surface.

by David Alpert on May 4, 2010 4:25 pm • linkreport

Thanks.

BTW, views of the Washington monument along Va. Ave are blocked at 11th St, by the flyover from the SE freeway to the 11th St bridge.

by goldfish on May 4, 2010 4:48 pm • linkreport

@goldfish:
Note: That's the most beautiful bridge of 1972!
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=5504

by Matt Johnson on May 4, 2010 4:49 pm • linkreport

"Screw the NCPC. There. I said it. Sorry Mr. Acosta, your agency is a relic and it needs to go. Move out of the way or get run over."

Sorry, but this city is different thanks to the height limit law, the Federal interest, the NCPC, the Commission on Fine Arts, etc. The building elevations shown look like any office building or hotel that might be built next to the NJ Turnpike or the PHL airport. I'm glad that those Federal structures and commissions push planners and developers to achieve a better design. Lord knows, one can't count on the idiots on the DC Zoning Commission to do it. (True story: at a 2009 zoning hearing during March Madness, the commissioners were observed actually watching a basketball game on their screens.)

by Not like the rest on May 4, 2010 5:21 pm • linkreport

I bike and run past that spot all of the time -- the underused Anacostia bike trail goes right by it. Trust me, there is no vista of the Washington Monument or of anything other than weedy empty lots, the railroad tracks and the SE Freeway from that location. Even without the Southeast Freeway blocking the view, I think elevation change would make it impossible to see the Washington Monument. As for any vista up 14th Street, it is also blocked by the Southeast Freewway. And, even without the Freeway there, the vista up 14th Street would be towards the Potomac Garden public housing comples and the Barney Circle neighborhood. I live in Barney Circle and love it, but I am pretty certain that it does not contain any focal points or other "vistas" that are particularly compelling. Also, the "reservations" NCPC is so concerned about do not exist anywhere other than maps. Literally. They are not there in any recognizable way as far as I can tell.

In this case, then, NCPC is concerned about "reservations" that exist only really old maps and on vistas that are no more and may have never been.

BTW: Don't tell NCPC or CHRS, but even though this stretch of M Street and Water Street are both in "Washington City" as defined by the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans, the utilities along both streets are strung overhead between wooden telephone poles..........Don't want to take my word for it, look at Google Streetsview (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1400+M+Street+SE,+DC&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=18.892024,33.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1400+M+St+SE,+Washington,+District+of+Columbia,+20003&ll=38.881011,-76.996608&spn=0,0.032787&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.876486,-76.986998&panoid=GQacSSfhMQqpujqqzEJu7A&cbp=12,124.4,,0,-0.68), which shows you the overhead lines as well as the lack of vistas or reservations as well as the current sorry state of the property.

by rg on May 4, 2010 5:34 pm • linkreport

I do have to say, though, that those are some pretty bland looking buildings.

by rg on May 4, 2010 5:35 pm • linkreport

But, NCPC objections are not based on the buildings themselves, but rather on the preservation of "reservations" and "vistas" that do not exist.

by rg on May 4, 2010 5:37 pm • linkreport

If this ever gets built, it will strip Maritime Plaza of its distinction as least accessible office buildings in DC!

Who, pray tell, is going to patronize the "ground floor retail?" Office workers and hotel guests? Great, a Sizzling Express and a dry cleaners. That is, if anyone actually stays at that hotel. What a great vacation spot! Close to nothing! Maybe some people visiting the Navy Yard, although with the Courtyard open and the hotel on top of the Metro station coming, I just don't see the need.

by urbaner on May 4, 2010 5:41 pm • linkreport

Well based on that linked google street view, even if you move it closer to that little traffic circle that I think is where VA ave would intersect, there definitely is no monumental view.

by NikolasM on May 4, 2010 5:48 pm • linkreport

@urbaner

What difference does it make? The developer is the one who's doing the market research.

For what it's worth, as things fill in down there both for the rest of Maritime Plaza and other developments along M St SE, plus the future transit connection along 11th St with the Streetcar.

Regarding the building renderings, I'd note that these likely aren't the finished product.

by Alex B. on May 4, 2010 6:12 pm • linkreport

@Not like the rest

Not buying the "federal interest" crap. Where is the federal interest in Hillcrest or Tenleytown? What's the special federal interest in overseeing building construction on one side of Western Avenue but not the other? Why is there no special federal interest in places directly visible from the monumental core like Arlington? Is Virginia invisible when viewed from the Mall?

To me, the NCPC and CFA all lost credible on matters of preservation and maintaining the "view shed" with the construction of the SE-SW highway and the complete destruction of Southwest Washington by the Army Corps of Engineers. The NCPC report also notes at the end that the National Park Service had particular aesthetic objections to the project, which is laughable considering that they exercise domain over some of the most ill-kept areas of the city.

by Adam L on May 4, 2010 6:30 pm • linkreport

I could see building an office building on spec and perhaps even apartments or condos at this location, but a hotel? It would need to be within a block or two of much more "action". This is the kind of location that typical DC visitors (i.e., people from the 'burbs who are afraid of the city or just afraid of getting lost) wouldn't like.

by Rich on May 4, 2010 7:01 pm • linkreport

"This is the kind of location that typical DC visitors (i.e., people from the 'burbs who are afraid of the city or just afraid of getting lost) wouldn't like."

Rich---note the rash of hotels and motels along New York Ave in Brentwood. Like those hotels, this one could succeed because (a) it's near a major highway and (b) being this far out, it would probably be cheap. There are lots of people who prioritize a cheap bed over action.

by xmal on May 4, 2010 11:47 pm • linkreport

I'm sure this is only a "massing diagram" but it may s well be the final design if you colour it in some blue-green glass. Hopefully the NCPC will demand more!

by Thayer-D on May 5, 2010 7:19 am • linkreport

Well, the Housing Complex article says this is will be a PUD, so it will get a more rigorous screening. The NCPC process was about the rights of way, not about design.

Point being, this is likely the first iteration of many.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2010/05/04/what-would-lenfant-do-or-when-is-a-street-not-a-street/

by Alex B. on May 5, 2010 7:52 am • linkreport

I cannot think of a more remote, spooky location so close in. The only access is the long, dead-end M St -- practically a dirt road -- with no connection to Pennsylvania Av or Barney Circle, which are within sight. Not to mention that trains roar by several times per hour on the CSX tracks ten feet away. I cannot imagine that it would attract any street traffic.

Besides the presumed low-cost of the land, it seems like the developer must be working an some kind of an angle. Are there plans to reconfigure Barney Circle or the SE freeway?

by goldfish on May 5, 2010 9:10 am • linkreport

Talking about destroyed viewsheds. What's the view of NCPC and the Club of 100 on the Treasury building that's destroying the view from the Capitol on the White House and vice verse? Should we tear down the Treasury?

by Jasper on May 5, 2010 9:27 am • linkreport

Just a side note. The first rendering shows two large sailboats at the waterfront dock. Unless someone plans on adding some draw bridges, those boats will not be there.

by stephen on May 6, 2010 8:46 am • linkreport

Isn't that the old Washington Gas site?? If so, then it's HEAVILY polluted. They did coal gasification on that site for a really long time, and the pollution is incredibly extensive. It should be an EPA superfund site.

The District has been fighting with Washington Gas for years to get Washington Gas to pay for the remediation--and it won't be cheap!

I CANNOT believe that anyone would get the green light to develop on that site or would want to...

by Evan on May 6, 2010 1:42 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or