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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park









by Adam L on May 4, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report
by Eric F. on May 4, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 4, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report
by goldfish on May 4, 2010 4:21 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 4, 2010 4:25 pm • link • report
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 • link • report
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 • link • report
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 • link • report
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 • link • report
by rg on May 4, 2010 5:35 pm • link • report
by rg on May 4, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report
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 • link • report
by NikolasM on May 4, 2010 5:48 pm • link • report
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 • link • report
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 • link • report
by Rich on May 4, 2010 7:01 pm • link • report
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 • link • report
by Thayer-D on May 5, 2010 7:19 am • link • report
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 • link • report
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 • link • report
by Jasper on May 5, 2010 9:27 am • link • report
by stephen on May 6, 2010 8:46 am • link • report
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 • link • report
Add a Comment