History
The interesting story of the Dumbarton Bridge
It's easy to ignore a thing of beauty when you pass it every single day. It's even easier to ignore it when you cruise over on top of it in a bus or car. The "it" in question is the Dumbarton Bridge, and today I want to stop and take in the bridge's beauty and tell its interesting story.
Photo by M. V. Jantzen on Flickr.
Georgetown was formed in 1751, decades before the founding of the District of Columbia and the city of Washington. Even after the creation of the District, Georgetown remained separated from the city of Washington both as a legal and a infrastructural matter through much of the 19th century. In 1871, however, Georgetown was merged with the city of Washington. In the decades after the legal merger, rapid residential developments directly to the east of Georgetown contributed greatly towards a physical merger as well.
Specifically, in the 1890s construction of the Connecticut Avenue bridge (now known as Taft Bridge) was started, Massachusetts Ave. north of Rock Creek was paved, and the Kalorama Estate was subdivided into residential plots. This inspired Georgetowners to push for a new bridge connecting north Georgetown with the quickly growing Kalorama neighborhood. They asserted that Q St. was the best option, although it came with a couple pretty significant complications (I'll get to that later).
Interestingly, this wasn't the first significant effort by Georgetowners to try to tie the neighborhood more closely with the neighborhoods directly across the park. Before a bridge was proposed, the Georgetown Citizens Association seriously proposed that Rock Creek be turned into a culvert, and the Rock Creek gorge filled in with land. This would open the area to residential development and facilitate movement between Georgetown and downtown. The plan was shot down by the McMillan Commission in 1901.
So a bridge it would have to be. By 1910, plans began to be formed. However, as mentioned above, there were some serious complications. First of all, Q st. came to a dead end at Dumbarton House. The historic mansion had to be relocated 100 feet to where it sits today. Secondly, Q St. in Georgetown is 185 feet south of Q St. across the park. The solution to this problem resulted in one of the bridge's most elegant features: its gentle curve.
The bridge was designed by Glenn Brown, a secretary of the American Institute of Architects and one of the main proponents of the McMillan Commission and its efforts to bring the City Beautiful design theory to Washington. And City Beautiful design elements are all over this bridge. First of all, it is a neoclassical bridge with strong influences from Roman aqueducts. Secondly, the very fact that a bridge was constructed with such grand scale and style instead of with a purely functional style was also a fundamental technique of the City Beautiful movement.
Those stately buffalo are probably the bridge's most distinctive feature, and they're why some call it the Buffalo Bridge (although frankly, GM hardly ever hears anyone actually use this name). They were designed by Phimister Proctor, who also designed the lion sculptures on the Taft Bridge. As you may remember, a few years ago they were in bad shape. An effort organized by the Dupont Circle Conservancy restored the buffalo to their current dark bronze state. By the way, apparently in 1923, the tail of the southeastern buffalo was cut off. Thankfully, at some point his dignity was restored.
The bridge's construction was finished in 1915.
Some more interesting tidbits:
- On the east end of the bridge, there used to be a plaza with a fountain. On the other end there was a streetcar yard (I'm not sure if it's part of the streetcar yard, but from this undated photo above, there appears to have once been a large factory building just west of the bridge).
- Originally there was a median down the center of the bridge where the lamps were (you can sort of see that above). It was removed in 1938 due to concerns over traffic safety and the lights were moved to the sidewalks.
- Perhaps the oddest fact of all: the undisputed expert in all things Dumbarton Bridge is none other than Minor Threat's Jeff Nelson, who's apparently been working on a book about the bridge since a year after Salad Days was released.
This article was crossposted on the Georgetown Metropolitan.
 | Topher Mathews has lived in the DC area since 1999. He created the Georgetown Metropolitan in 2008 to report on news and events for the neighborhood and to advocate for changes that will enhance its urban form and function. A native of Wilton, CT, he lives with his wife and new daughter in Georgetown.   |
Comments
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Residents organize for positive change in Bluemont
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sssdc/2221179549/in/photostream/
by Steve on Aug 18, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
by rdhd on Aug 18, 2010 11:14 am • link • report
by Bossi on Aug 18, 2010 11:39 am • link • report
Do you know why the bridge is curved, and not straight?
I wonder if the members of the club of 100 protested the destruction of the viewshed from Rock Creek Park due to the bridge. In 1915, they could have been standing there in the arms of their parents in their diapers ;-p
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2010 11:44 am • link • report
5th Paragraph:
by Matt Johnson on Aug 18, 2010 11:46 am • link • report
by Tim on Aug 18, 2010 11:49 am • link • report
It's in your head
It's in your head
(duh duh duh duh duh duh duh)
Dumbarton Bridge!
by Ian on Aug 18, 2010 11:54 am • link • report
Here is your answer (from above):
Before a bridge was proposed, the Georgetown Citizens Association seriously proposed that Rock Creek be turned into a culvert, and the Rock Creek gorge filled in with land. This would open the area to residential development and facilitate movement between Georgetown and downtown. The plan was shot down by the McMillan Commission in 1901.
The Committee of 100 is called a 'committee' because it started off as a committee of the National Capitol Planning Commission (the called the American Civic Association) ... And the National Capitol Planning Commission came directly out of the McMillian Commission and its efforts to execute its plans via individuals such as Frederic A. Delano, the Committee of 100's first president (and long time president) and prior to that the chair of the National Capitol Planning Commission's predecessor.
I.e., You have that bridge because of the Committee of 100 and the ideals it represents.
David likes to misrepresent and even demonize the Committee of 100 on the Federal City. This organization has carried on for many decades (since 1922), and with overall great success, the very same urbanist, historic preservation, and 'city beautiful' ideas he says he's for. And I can only wonder why ... unless maybe he sees an opportunity for himself and his blog by misrepresenting and demonizing the organization which holds the place in the City of Washington, that he'd like himself and his blog to hold.
It's too bad, because with his blog skills he could contribute greatly to the advancement of these ideals by working with the Committee of 100 as so many others from all walks of life throughout DC have done since 1923. But I guess that would require not being 'the authoritative voice' on anything and everything pursuant to land use issues in the District. And not holding the spotlight ... Or deeming himself a self-appointed expert on these matters at hearings simply because he worked for Google once upon a time and knows how to put a blog together.
Personally, I'm more apt to trust an organization whose members span the gamut in breadth and depth of experience and knowledge (everyone from Andrea Ferster who is working with DDOT to get the wire ban overturned to others who see the ban as essential to maintaining the open skies of the capital ... and people with transportation experience such as Sarah Campbell.) For one thing it's much more democratic. For another, it means that policies and efforts get advanced after open discussion and with the synergy of many individuals representing many and varied viewpoints from throughout the city ... And not just those as interpreted by one individual who though I am sure well meaning can't possibly be the end all and know all for land use issues in the District of Columbia.
www.committeeof100.net/history.html
by Lance on Aug 18, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report
I believe there's a very old cemetary in the way of what you're proposing. (On the northside of Q Street on the Gtown side.) Maybe that's the reason?
by Lance on Aug 18, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report
Have you thought of starting your own blog or social media outreach? I'm not trying to be snarky here, but for the amount of time you spend here commenting on David and other posts, you could build your own blog.
Again, this isn't meant to be an attack. You've made some points I've really agreed with in the past but as it is, I tend to skip through your comments because it's just going to be pretty much the opposite of what was just written. I'd be interested in hearing what you're for.
You clearly are knowledgeable about these matters, have a very strong viewpoint, and really articulate a different voice on these topics. Perhaps your own platform might help you make the case a bit better?
by TimK on Aug 18, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
I couldn't think of a better joke.
by Canaan on Aug 18, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report
I think the criticism is that the organization has lost sight of its original goals, and I think that David and many others here are largely in favor of the sort of long-term urban planning that the Mcmillan Commission, NCPC, and Committee of 100 are supposed to represent.
Currently, the NCPC are expending their energies fighting power lines in a (recovering) riot-scarred slum, while the National Park Service have almost completely derelicted their duties of planning and maintaining the city's monumental core. I don't see the NCPC or NPS proposing beautiful new bridges that benefit the residents of the areas surrounding them -- if the quality of their work today was up to par, I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic. While the NCPC frantically fights the streetcar wires, the NPS concurrently plans to add more spaces along the mall for tourbuses to idle. None of the planning makes any damn sense.
In 1922, Washington was The Federal City. Today, it's becoming much, much more, and our planning needs to reflect that.
by andrew on Aug 18, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report
Have you thought about the idea that while the Committee of 100 may have been a relevant and purposeful organization in the past, as of this writing, the Committee is filled with many of the most spiteful and status-quo oriented "community activists" in the City?
Perhaps the organization needs to look in the mirror about its membership, recruitment, communications and impact.
Sure it has a great history, but is has become increasingly shrill and irrelevant over the past 20 years.
by William on Aug 18, 2010 2:14 pm • link • report
by Phil on Aug 18, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report
@ Lance (a rare reaction, but you took the bate):I'm more apt to trust an organization whose members span the gamut in breadth and depth of experience and knowledge
No. You trust the Committee because you're a member. Inherently, that means that you subscribe to its goals. And so would I. But I'm not a member, and hence we come to my next point. I do not like committees, clubs, and organizations that can not be held accountable through democratic means. This dislike to so large, that I can not figure out whether lobbying is ethical, because lobby-organizations (whether from K St, or grass roots), still have no public accountability. Lobbying often ends up being a shouting match in which the content gets lost. Then everybody looses.
Also, to claim credit for a decision that was taken years before your committee was started seems kind of a long shot. Seriously, women couldn't even vote back then. Actually, now I think of it, did Washingtonians have any voting rights at the time? Regardless, the ruling class at the time was probably so small that anybody can tie themselves to anybody else at the time. And the same for organizations at the time.
by Jasper on Aug 18, 2010 2:25 pm • link • report
For Tim/Lance re: selected Bridge location. There are actually *two* historic cemeteries to the northeast of Cedar Hill (Female Union Band Cemetery, and Mt. Zion's Cemetery). I speculate that it was not the cemeteries that prevented the building of the Bridge in its current location, but the terrain: Cedar Hill, literally a hill on the heights of Georgetown, would have had to be carved away (perhaps tunneled?) to accommodate a road between two huge mansion homes, "Belle Vue" (today, Dumbarton House) and "Evermay" to its northwest. From an engineering standpoint, maybe it was just easier to move Belle Vue/Dumbarton House back (still uphill a bit), allowing for an easier one-side cut into the hillside (and continuing the existing street), rather than carving through the higher elevation on both sides to then curve hard south to the existing street (to avoid other existing structures??). Purely speculation.... We'll have to wait for Jeff Nelson's bridge book....
by Missy at Dumbarton House on Aug 18, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report
The last paragraph of http://www.committeeof100.net/history.html mentions three current projects: redesign of the Whitehurst Freeway (to what? where is their plan?), improving regional air quality standards (yay! but how?), and reinvigoration of the NCPC (by doing what?). The GGW blog has captured more attention because every post lays out a position, and gives readers a chance to discuss and contribute ideas. Having these discussions in a public forum where everyone is welcome is a better way of doing business than having 100 people that I've never heard of discuss plans among themselves and then lobby powerbrokers.
by M.V. Jantzen on Aug 18, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report
by TimK on Aug 18, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report
by Interested on Aug 18, 2010 3:52 pm • link • report
Silly question: Did Georgetown "belong" to Maryland, then? Or did it "belong" to the District of Columbia, but was separate from "Washington"? What would the mailing address have been? Georgetown, District of Columbia? Georgetown, Maryland?
by Nigel Tufnel on Aug 18, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Aug 18, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report
Georgetown held a separate charter than the City of Washington (roughly what is now DC south of Florida Ave) until 1871. At that point, the City of Washington, Georgetown, and the County of Washington (everything not in the first two) were combined under the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.
So prior to 1871, the address would have been Georgetown, DC. After the Act, many residents continued this but the Post Office only recognizes Washington, DC.
Of course, prior to 1801, it would have been Georgetown, MD.
by TimK on Aug 18, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report
Funny you should suggest this ... Actually, a new website is currently in production. As far as a blog goes, that goes back to the suggestion I originally posted above ...
with his blog skills he could contribute greatly to the advancement of these ideals by working with the Committee of 100 as so many others from all walks of life throughout DC have done since 1922. With the 'he' being David Alpert.
Here you have a long established organization, with a excellent track record going back over 88 years, and filled with people from all walks of life and all corners of the city, and having the respect of the District and Federal governments because of its long and excellent record and hundreds of dedicated members, some of which are part of these very same governments. Why wouldn't David say 'how can I help?'. 'How can I bring the social media to the Committee of 100 to help build on that established record?'
And THAT was the question I posed ....And I posed it because that's what I would expect ... instead of this current campaign to demonize the Commitee of 100 as if it were in competition for something with David. David is an individual The Committee of 100 is the people of this city.
by Lance on Aug 18, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report
by GWalum on Aug 18, 2010 5:30 pm • link • report
Frankly, I wonder why David lets his blog be hijacked by these people. Nothing wrong with different points of view but Lance (a C100 board member) seems to be engaged in a coordinated effort to troll and spread FUD in almost every comment thread here.
by Phil on Aug 18, 2010 9:39 pm • link • report
by Lance on Aug 18, 2010 9:50 pm • link • report
I would submit that the Committee of 100 needs to look at how membership is conducted, how its resolutions, or decisions for advocacy letters are formed and distributed etc.
In other words, there is a body of process which legitimizes an organization. I know people who are listed as members who have chosen not to participate in proceedings over the past 3-6 years because the decision-making process is closed, and the positions taken have been, on whole, completely absurd.
Sure, the Committee can continue to be a closed organization whose sub-committees operate in relative seclusion to the full membership, but all that does is continue to marginalize its positions from any sort of relevance.
I think there have been constructive suggestions made in this forum, and certainly from my standpoint, privately to members who I know, who are not engaged, but to date, it has fallen on deaf ears.
Please, I encourage you to continue the path to irrelevance as such a course of action will put the Committee right where it belongs.
by William on Aug 18, 2010 9:58 pm • link • report
Imma thinking here, you're messing up national demographics with local demographics. In DC, whites were and are the minority. By a clear margin. So, are you saying the C100 was one of the first embracing white members?
Secondly, any club that allows its members to determine who new members are, over time, will become incestuous and narrow-minded. I know, cuz I'm a member of one of the largest self-selecting clubs in the world, be it that we're terribly disorganized. Luckily with us, we allow any 6-10 members to determine who gets to join, and we have no numeric upper limit.
However, in smaller and more closed groups, like the C100, out-of-the-box thinkers rarely get in. Group think rules, and if you don't subscribe, you don't get in. I challenge the C100 to nominate David, or Matt, or any of the established and knowledgeable GGW writers, for the next membership. I'm not holding my breath.
Now this incestuous, and narrow-minded nature is no issue whatsoever, it the members just play golf, lay cards, work together or just get shitfaced every Tuesday night.
It is a problem though when such a club has a significant and institutionalized influence on public policy. The problem is the lack of democratic transparency.
by Jasper on Aug 19, 2010 10:25 am • link • report
Regarding 'minority', correct I meant "minority" in the larger sense ... as in "women and 'US national' minorities".
And btw, in "Committee of 100", the "100" doesn't mean anything as far as I know. Perhaps a long long time ago the organization limited itself to 100 members, I believe the membership today is somewhere around 150 members ... and I KNOW that there is no cap on membership numbers.
Jasper: I challenge the C100 to nominate David, or Matt, or any of the established and knowledgeable GGW writers, for the next membership. I'm not holding my breath.
hmmm ... I will point you again to what I wrote in my first posting on this thread:
with his blog skills he could contribute greatly to the advancement of these ideals by working with the Committee of 100 as so many others from all walks of life throughout DC have done since 1922. with the 'he' being David Alpert.
My point when I first posted on this thread was that I don't see any willingness on his part to want to join the Committee of 100 ... And yes, I have extended invitations for David's participation in Committee of 100 events, ... and yes ... he's even attended on one occasion. And in the past we've discussed his speaking at a membership meeting, and I will hereby re-extend that invitation if he wants to take me up on it.
I'll concede that yes, the group is self selecting, but it's not self selecting in the way you are envisioning. For example, there are no caps.
by Lance on Aug 19, 2010 11:28 am • link • report
Thanks for your kind words. However I believe that I am not eligible to be on the Committee of 100 because I am not a resident of the District of Columbia.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 19, 2010 11:29 am • link • report
And hence we get another reinforcement of the group think. As I said, all potential members must silently be willing to be a member of a closed, undemocratic society.
by Jasper on Aug 19, 2010 2:22 pm • link • report
by Lance on Aug 19, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report
I happen to be one of those people who call the Dumbarton Bridge the "Buffalo Bridge." In all fairness this is from when I was probably 10 years old (longer ago than I care to admit) and I never knew the formal name.
I just found this site and am enjoying it immensly.
by Charles Mead on Aug 19, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report
Its History and Its Service to the Nation's Capital
Richard Striner Ph. D
The Committee of 100 on the Federal City was founded in 1923 to act as a force of conscience in the evolution of the nation's capital city. It was formed to sustain and to safeguard the fundamental values derived from the tradition of the L'Enfant Plan and the McMillan Commission -- that give the nation's capital so much of its distinction, its beauty, and its grace as a community.
The Committee began in an age that sought to revive and extend the original planning ideals for Washington, D.C. Influenced by the “City Beautiful” movement, by resurgent architectural classicism, by the conservationist ethic, and by various urban reform movements inspired by the early 20th-century muckrakers, planners sought to make the nation's capital the living embodiment of their ideals. The creation in 1901 of the McMillan Commission led to the articulation of sweeping initiatives for extending the L'Enfant Plan and for establishing strong standards for parks, monuments, public buildings, and scenic vistas far beyond the monumental core of D.C. In the spirit of idealism that suffused the age of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the recommendations of the McMillan Commission inspired successive reforms: the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts in 1910, the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, and the Washington Zoning Ordinance of 1920. These eventful years comprised the background to the establishment of the Committee of 100.
Another essential aspect of the Committee's founding was the widespread concern that the achievements of the preceding quarter century might prove to be fragile or insubstantial without continued oversight and advocacy. The distraction of World War I, followed by the laissez-faire of the early 1920s and the escapist “Back to Normalcy” spirit, led a number of prominent planners to undertake initiatives to preserve the momentum of planning in the nation's capital. The scope of planning concerns expanded to address D.C.’s overcrowded schools, dismal alley housing conditions, and environmentally damaged natural lands under threat of being lost to development.
When Frederic A. Delano was asked in 1922 to become chairman of the American Civic Association and to form a Committee of 100 on the Federal City within that group, he accepted because, as he put it, “We all realized that comprehensive planning would be more constructive than sporadic resistance to a constant succession of proposals unrelated to a general plan.” The American Civic Association, with 75 chapters throughout the U.S. focused towards the improvement of the national capital, gave the Committee a level of national support that no other city could claim.
The Committee of 100 released its first report in January 1924. The report recommended a major extension of Washington's park and forest preserves under the guidance of an overall planning agency that would focus on park planning as one of its major responsibilities. But the Committee of 100 had advocated more than just an agency for parkland acquisition, recommending also that broad planning powers be vested in such an agency. It was the Committee's continued advocacy of this concept that prompted the creation of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission (NCPPC) in 1926.
Frederic A. Delano, who was chairman of the Committee of 100 from 1923 to 1944, served concurrently as chairman of NCPPC through most of its formative years. Delano pioneered major planning efforts, most notably a comprehensive plan for parks, parkways and recreational facilities for Washington and environs. DelanoÂ’s work led to the acquisition of new parkland in Washington, D.C. and the creation of the George Washington Memorial Parkway on both sides of the Potomac River, as well as extensions of parkland along Rock Creek and the Anacostia River into suburban Maryland.
The years of the Depression and the New Deal constituted an ambiguous time in the history of planning for the federal city. In some ways, the legacy of the McMillan Commission continued to be extended, with protection of park land and vistas, continued construction of grand architectural monuments in keeping with the “City Beautiful” vision, and the construction of public housing. However, the New Deal reforms created certain problems. Short-term federal agencies were created to alleviate the nation’s economic crisis; their imperative need for office space frequently prompted expedient shortcuts around NCPPC’s plans. This situation took a dramatic turn for the worse in the 1940s when World War II preempted almost every long-term planning provision for the federal city in favor of emergency needs in the wartime nerve center.
In the aftermath of World War II, the growth of the Washington metropolitan area continued to be explosive. The postwar period witnessed a major change in the spirit of public-sector planning as well, a change that would challenge the ideals and the mission of the Committee of 100. From its early days as an advocate and initiator of federal planning programs created to further McMillan-style planning, the Committee of 100 was ironically forced into more of an adversarial stance against some of the very planning agencies it helped to create.
What accounted for this was a shift in intellectual and cultural values. In the post-World War II period, the “City Beautiful” version of civic order was gradually overtaken and supplanted by the legacy of radical modernism, itself augmented by the culture of the automobile. The Committee was chagrined to find that the war against urban blight was redirected into massive urban renewal and freeway projects that produced major problems of fragmented development and over-building. To many observers, these nominal reform efforts seemed to constitute a case of well-intentioned ideas gone totally out of control, to the point where the freeways and the high-rise redevelopment appeared to be a new form of urban blight unto themselves. The Committee of 100 played a strong role in prompting the rethinking of the freeway approach to the challenge of the motor age.
In the 1940s and 1950s, large-scale programs of urban renewal were planned for Washington, particularly in the southwest quadrant. Early proposals for low-density rehabilitation were rejected in favor of the massive high-rise approach to building. In 1950, the NCPPC (renamed the National Capital Planning Commission, or NCPC, in 1952) proposed a comprehensive plan that emphasized urban renewal projects and three circumferential beltways around Washington.
The Committee of 100 took a prominent role in challenging previously-accepted freeway plans for the District. The presidential appointee members of NCPC, many of whom had doubts about earlier freeway plans, encouraged testimony by the Committee and were guided by it. The Committee opposed the Interstate Highway plans that would create high-speed interstate corridors through city neighborhoods.
The “Washington Freeway Battle” most visibly distinguished the work of the Committee of 100 in the 1950s and 1960s. It began with a proposal by District and Maryland highway planners to extend a freeway through Rock Creek Park to downtown Washington. The Committee joined the National Park Service, NCPC, and numerous national and local organizations in opposing this plan. Next, the road planners proposed a freeway extension down Wisconsin Avenue to Tenley Circle, then splitting with one leg through Melvin C. Hazen Park and Rock Creek Park and a second leg running down Glover-Archbold Park to the Potomac. The Committee also opposed this plan, joining with the families that had donated most of Glover-Archbold Park in litigation to block invasion of this irreplaceable stream valley woodland.
The Committee then gained support from civic groups throughout the city to defeat an elaborate wheel-and-spokes freeway plan. This plan involved not only extensive invasion of parklands and residential areas but also a new Potomac bridge at Three Sisters Islands near Spout Run. With the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations, the Committee sued in the federal courts. The landmark case reached a successful conclusion in 1968, blocking construction of the Three Sisters Bridge, the Potomac Freeway, the East Leg of a projected Inner Loop Freeway and a Northeast-North Central Freeway.
Meanwhile, the Committee strongly backed the creation of the National Capital Transportation Agency, which launched plans for a rail transit system designed to reduce the pressure of commuter vehicular traffic.
The Committee of 100 incorporated as a nonprofit group in 1965 and was granted tax-exempt status in 1967. During these years, the Committee broadened its membership base throughout the city and entered into effective coalitions with other civic and neighborhood organizations. Concurrently with its new role as watchdog on transportation issues, the Committee of 100 lent strong support to the growing movement for historic preservation in Washington. The Committee joined in the efforts to preserve the old Patent Office, the Old Stone House in Georgetown, the historic precinct at Lafayette Square and the historic district on Capitol Hill.
During this period the Committee worked zealously to protect Washington's parks not only against highway encroachment but also against undesirable internal and abutting development. It also aided protection of important natural areas along the Potomac, including the Maryland shore opposite Mount Vernon, wetlands at the mouths of several Virginia creeks just south of the District, and Mason Neck below Fort Belvoir. The Committee played a major role in persuading Congress to create a thousand-acre national wildlife refuge for bald eagles and other species on Mason Neck, and helped to establish state and regional parks nearby.
The struggle for adoption of a comprehensive plan was one of the abiding tasks that confronted the Committee of 100 and D.C. community organizations in the 1970s and 1980s. The drafting of the comprehensive plan was repeatedly deferred by the city as the city sought to revitalize its economic base in the aftermath of the calamitous racial tension of the late 1960s and the parallel “flight to the suburbs” of many affluent taxpayers. In such a climate, the temptation to seek short-term economic solutions by encouraging maximum revenue-producing development was exacerbated by the growing domination of the region's economy by the real-estate and construction industry.
The pattern was set across the Potomac River, where Arlington County supported enormous high-rise concentrations of office buildings in Rosslyn and Crystal City. Recurrent attempts to inflict similar high-rise development upon the forested profile of the Potomac Palisades required continuous vigilance by the Committee of 100. The Committee collaborated successfully with the National Park Service to prevent egregious intrusion on the natural setting of Palisades.
The D.C. government was eager to keep pace in the competition for revenue. One of the first of the resultant controversies took place over development of the Georgetown waterfront. The Georgetown citizensÂ’ associations battled vigorously to maintain the waterfront area as an historic district with stringent limitations on new development. The Committee of 100 joined in this effort.
The fight for the Georgetown waterfront triggered a greater awareness of the threats to the city's heritage and quality of neighborhood life that were posed by unplanned or ill-planned development. The 1970s witnessed a proliferation of citizen demands for controlled growth and historic preservation in such areas as the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Shaw, the downtown area, and Anacostia. The Committee maintained close liaisons with civic advocacy organizations that emerged in the early years of home rule, and has worked closely with many of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions established by the Home Rule Act.
In 1982, the Committee of 100 was requested by the U.S. General Accounting Office to assist in preparing a study of the National Capital Planning Commission. The Committee praised the legacy of NCPC while urging a number of steps to strengthen the organization. Specifically, the Committee of 100 advocated stronger liaisons with regional and federal organizations; that NCPC commissioners be selected to ensure the greatest breadth of vision and professional stature; that NCPC authority be extended; and that the pressing needs for funds and resources be met in order to complete the Comprehensive Plan.
In 1984-85, the D.C. City Council at last approved the District elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee of 100 worked vigorously to delineate the all-important Ward Plans that were to provide for specific implementation of the general, and often vague, provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding valiant citizen efforts to uphold the planning mandated by Congress, much of the plan adopted in 1984 was effectively abandoned by the late 1980s. A succession of politically motivated “spot changes” in the plan and related ad hoc zoning attempts made a mockery of the citizens' hopes for a competent planning and development process.
At the same time, the Committee of 100 led the battle in one of the most high-profile downtown land use controversies: the case of “Techworld,” a vast commercial office complex on Mount Vernon Square. The Committee worked with the D.C. Preservation League to prevent the construction of Techworld through testimony before the NCPC and the Zoning Commission, and then joined the League in presenting the case before the U.S. District Court. The Committee was joined by the Justice Department in the appealing the adverse decision by the lower court. In addition to contending that the city did not have the right to close Eighth Street and to permit the Techworld project to straddle the street with a multi-story building, the appellants also objected to violations of the 1910 Height of Buildings Act. Ultimately, the court battle was not successful in stopping Techworld because of an eleventh-hour amendment by Congress to the appropriations bill for D.C.
In a subsequent case, the Committee was successful in stopping the erection of a large, inappropriate rooftop addition to the Beaux Arts “Old City Post Office” building immediately adjacent to Union Station. In a related case, the Committee was successful in persuading Congress to respect the 1910 Height of Buildings Act in plans for a new judiciary administrative building on the east side of Union Station. The Committee continued to defend the integrity of the 1910 Act through its successful intervention in the Market Square North project, in which extra height was sought for a new building near the Navy Memorial.
Throughout the 1990s the Committee expanded its support for historic preservation of landmark buildings, and supported the creation of new historic districts in Sheridan-Kalorama, Kalorama Triangle, and Cleveland Park. In 1994, in collaboration with the Anacostia Coordinating Council, the Committee was instrumental in establishing an annual historic preservation awards program for the Anacostia Historic District.
The Committee also helped to unify the preservation community in opposition to the destruction of the Woodward Building, a major contributing building in the 15th Street Historic District. In 1990 the Committee won a significant court ruling that overturned the decision to demolish the Woodward Building and imposed more stringent requirements in “special merit” cases. The Committee of 100's work in preserving the Woodward Building and narrowing the “special merit” loophole was recognized by the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. as the most significant preservation action in 1990.
A related concern was the effort by developers to employ Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) as a method of building inappropriately sized or located buildings in return for amenities which are provided offsite. Committee of 100 members attacked this practice in cases before the Zoning Committee and District of Columbia courts. Also, pursuant to its oversight on zoning issues, the Committee steadfastly urged the D.C. Government to bring its zoning into conformance with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, the Committee strongly opposed attempts to weaken the city's planning and zoning mandates for downtown housing.
Litigation brought by the Committee and others was required to block the transfer of jurisdiction over Kingman Island (Children's Island) in the Anacostia River from the National Park Service to the city government without the legally required environmental studies. This transfer would have resulted in the conversion of public parkland to commercial purposes. Vigorous action by the Committee was necessary also to help counteract a proposal for an ill-planned and ill-sited professional football stadium in the Anacostia River Basin in flagrant violation of key principles of the L'Enfant Plan.
As the Committee of 100 looks to the future, it faces continued challenges and threats to the legacy of sound planning that the McMillan Commission hoped to bequeath to future generations. The tremendous and ever-accelerating growth of the region threatens federal historic landmarks as far away as Manassas, Virginia, and environmental systems as vast as the Chesapeake Bay.
The Committee will continue to advance the proposition that planning of the highest caliber is essential to ensure for residents of Washington D.C. -- indeed for all the citizens of the United States for whom the District is a symbol -- the attainment and preservation of a city worthy of the nation. From specific proposals such as its plan for the redesign of the Whitehurst Freeway, to more general initiatives such as testimony on regional air quality standards and support for reinvigoration of the NCPC, the Committee continues its broad campaign for exemplary planning in the nation's capital.
by GWalum on Aug 19, 2010 6:57 pm • link • report
by Herschel on Aug 31, 2010 4:22 pm • link • report
by SPaine on Aug 10, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report
by angela shanks on Nov 5, 2011 11:20 am • link • report
Add a Comment