Great idea at first blush, except I'd love to see some 24-hour life for the mall. I was hoping for a residential-mixed use 5-9 story rebuilding of parts of SW all the while restoring some of the diagonal boulevards. Furthermore have some water taxi and ferry facilities to bring people in from VA. But per the map diagram, one could certainly expand downtown up Union Station to make a V shape around the new Convention Center.

by Thayer-D on Oct 1, 2010 2:21 pm • link • report

map is a bit misleading, since a large chunk of that "SW Activity Center" is actually in SE. Not sure the benefit of lumping it together under that name.

by DG-rad on Oct 1, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

You know, if the silver line were rerouted along the Yellow and Green Lines (i.e. Courthouse-Rosslyn-Arlington Cemetery-[Jefferson Memorial?]-Waterfront-Navy Yard), this would not only solve a number of capacity problems but also stimulate development south of the Mall.

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 1, 2010 2:29 pm • link • report

Including more housing in this area would be a great idea so people can live near this new office space and have an alternative to taking Metro. Nat Bottigheimer gave a great presentation to the Tenley Neighborhood Association last night and noted one of the areas that metrorail is going to face real capacity issues and challenges is L'Enfant Plaza. Including more housing near this planned office development will give people a choice of walking/biking to work as well as taking Metro.

I say this half in jest, but DC also needs its own 'Big Dig.' The area by the Navy Yard and the Nationals stadium is slowly developing into a decent neighborhood and the Hill and Barracks Row is already a great neighborhood but the highway divides the two.

by Ben on Oct 1, 2010 2:31 pm • link • report

I'm not sure if it's fair to say that if development doesn't happen in Southwest or the Navy Yard, it'll happen in Loudoun County. It's not either-or. Businesses and households seeking to locate in Herndon are not necessarily the same ones who would locate in Southwest. It's possible that a new downtown will form in Southwest while growth continues in the suburbs, and that's okay. The real issue is what form that growth takes in each place.

by dan reed! on Oct 1, 2010 2:51 pm • link • report

+ 1 dan_reed. Exactly.

And proximity to the capitol is not important for 85% of jobs in this town.

The idea of running the Silver Line over the 14th street bridge is brilliant, but as someone else said L'Enfant is already too crowded.

by charlie on Oct 1, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report

@Dan:

Hopefully the days of the Loudoun County sprawl are coming to an end (especially if gas prices rise significantly in the next 2-3 decades). I don't disagree that there will be some traditional suburban-style growth but the the development of Tysons and the Dulles corridor following the Dulles Metro extension, White Flint, the development here in SE/SW, and infill development around metro stations in Prince Georges County, hopefully many of the 2M new residents we're expected to gain by 2050 can be accommodated without paving over more undeveloped land.

by Ben on Oct 1, 2010 2:57 pm • link • report

@Dan:

It is an either-or proposition if regional governments plan out constraints and zoning to effectively force the result either way. But I have a feeling you missed the point of the statement, which was to simplify the concept of smart growth for mass consumption. We don't have to debate the points each time.

by Eric on Oct 1, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

If this is the future direction of downtown development, another option for solving Metro's Rosslyn tunnel capacity problem should be considered (btw, not my original idea). Blue Line trains from Franconia would cross the Yellow Line in Alexandria, go over the Wilson Bridge (which is built to carry 8-car Metro trains), and proceed by some route through the new SW Activity Center to Union Station (where another line is needed to handle future increases in MARC and VRE ridership). Half the Blue Line trains coming over the Wilson Bridge from D.C. would share the Yellow Line track from Alexandria to Pentagon, and proceed to Rosslyn where they would dead-end on a new track and platform. Variations of this concept are invited!

ps Thank you, Cavan, and I hope to see some of you tomorrow afternoon.

by Ben Ross on Oct 1, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report

Ditto on the Metro comments. You'd also have to get rid of the existing projects and replace them with mixed use residential (no rentals)...

by Redline SOS on Oct 1, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report

This already is the future for the city. For more information about the growth of 'Downtown,' I'd suggest looking into the Center City Action Agenda from 2007:

http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1285,q,639047.asp

The broad presentation shows the evolution from the Downtown Washington plan (1996) to the Downtown Action Agenda (2000) to the broader Center City Action Agenda (2007):

http://planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=/planning/lib/planning/pdf/ccaa_web_presentation.pdf

by Alex B. on Oct 1, 2010 3:49 pm • link • report

Can any of this really occur if the Freeway is still standing?

by Shipsa01 on Oct 1, 2010 3:56 pm • link • report

@Shipsa01

It's already happening with the freeway in place.

by Alex B. on Oct 1, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

A large chunk of the teal area around South Cap, NJ, M and I is already built out with new buildings. But they're empty. Plans don't mean anything if the economy continues to lag and vacancy rates remain sky high. Dead on arrival.

by crin on Oct 1, 2010 4:20 pm • link • report

I'd really like to see the SW Freeway razed completely. It's a complete eyesore and rips apart neighborhoods.

If development is expected to grow in the SW area as anticipated, perhaps it's time for more rapid rail, not just streetcars. Density similar to that of Downtown DC/Golden Triangle needs more Metrorail.

by John on Oct 1, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report

@John-

I was kind of intrigued by J.D. Hammond's comment on realigning the Silver Line to follow the Green Line, which suggested the Silver Line go by Arlington Cemetery and then over the Yellow Line bridge.

Although in my opinion I'd prefer to see it diverge instead continue into northwest and instead diverge between Smithsonian & L'Enfant, missing the latter but connecting into Waterfront... basically draw a line between the horizontal curves within each line.

One caveat would be whether it'd go above or below the Yellow Line tunnel... I'm not too sure offhand how deep that is nor how deep such a hypothetical alignment would be at each end.

by Bossi on Oct 1, 2010 5:00 pm • link • report

That sounds almost exactly like what I had in mind? I think? Ultimately the line would continue to Anacostia, where I believe there's a pocket track. I'd have to see a map for where your and my designs would differ.

This would admittedly frustrate users transferring from the Red Line, but a lot of these issues could be resolved later. (I honestly see it as a preliminary step towards Neil Flanagan's "Blue and Circle Lines" proposal.)

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 1, 2010 5:13 pm • link • report

@J.D. Hammond:
The southern Green Line does not have any pocket tracks. The only pocket track at all, in fact, between Greenbelt and Branch Avenue is between Mount Vernon Square and Shaw (which is used for turning back rush hour Yellows).

by Matt Johnson on Oct 1, 2010 6:06 pm • link • report

Ok, I'll play. Combine J D Hammond and Ben Ross's ideas. The Silver Line runs from Dulles through East Falls Church and Courthouse (with the Orange Line) to a new station at Rosslyn (connected to the old one, of course) thence to Arlington Cemetery (with the Blue Line), thence across the 14th St bridge (with the Yellow Line), then through a new tunnel under 9th St to F St. East under F St. at the same level as the Red Line to an enlarged Gallery Place station, then south under 6th St to meet the Green Line under Maine Ave, run through Waterfront and Navy Yard stations(with the Green Line), then along the 295 alignment to the Wilson Bridge, use the "transit lanes" on the bridge to meet the Yellow Line just south of Eisenhower Ave., run through the Eisenhower Ave. station and use the yard lead tracks to reach the Blue Line tracks through Van Dorn St. to Franconia-Springfield. Add stations at, say, 9th and Constitution, 6th and Independence, Bolling AFB, National Harbour, Washington St. in Alexandria and the previously planned infill station at Bluestone/Quaker Lane, as well as the new Rosslyn and enlarged Gallery Place.

All we need is several billion dollars.

by jim on Oct 1, 2010 7:07 pm • link • report

Can a south-bound train leave Arlington Cementary and do a turn before Pentagon to ride the 14th Street Bridge? That would seem to be a sticking point, yes?

That said, good to see the SW be improved.

by L. Fairfax on Oct 1, 2010 9:18 pm • link • report

re: eyesore freeways.
It is possible to retrofit the existing freeways by putting a deck or cap. Its even considered for DC http://www.dcroads.net/roads/potomac-river/

You can put pedestrian and bike routes on it, and the rest of it is grass. The benefits of an improved neighborhood must be balanced against cost: its not cheap. I suppose the "cheap" is compared to what, since, money is always available when it comes to building the freeway in the firs place.

by SJE on Oct 1, 2010 9:30 pm • link • report

Jim, my idea doesn't require several billion dollars. That was entirely my point (not that you likely cared to begin with).

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 1, 2010 9:44 pm • link • report

@Dan M. but only a minority of the buildings in Southwest and Near Southeast are historic. (In large part, this is because the federal government razed the really historic parts of the area long ago.)

Actually, that's incorrect. Read your sentences in reverse order, and you'll understand why it is incorrect. I.e., The planned 'new' Southwest is very historic in that it is the incarnation of one of the federal government's first successful transformations of a 'slum' area into modern mixed use area right near the center of the city. This is actually a BIG topic in the preservation community today (I mean Southwest and similar type of 20th century mid-modern communities.) I'll try to find some links about it and about the efforts to get them designated as historic.

by Lance on Oct 1, 2010 10:23 pm • link • report

as promised:

www.dcpreservation.org/conference

by Lance on Oct 1, 2010 10:31 pm • link • report

Great. So instead of having one intersection at 16th and I commemorated as a concrete bunker, we will get a whole neighborhood.

by William on Oct 1, 2010 11:07 pm • link • report

So it's not historic because you don't like it, William?

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 2, 2010 3:11 am • link • report

I think you could have a reasonably vibrant downtown in SW/SE with a freeway but it would be much easier without it. I think most posters who talk about adding capacity to Metro are spot on. Many great and walkable cities seem to also have comprehensive subway systems. The DC area does not.

Just coming back from Paris, you want people to walk to get to the places near stations. The more stations, the more opportunity for business to draw customers. As a metropolitan area, we really do need to invest in new subway lines for this and other areas.

by Randall M. on Oct 2, 2010 5:04 am • link • report

The urban renewal part of Southwest is pretty cool, and it's old now. Urban Renewal had tremendous birthing pains, but now that it's finished (it took 30 years) and has a mature landscape it's a great neighborhood.

It has a character unlike any other part of DC. Residential tower blocks raised on columns so the first floors are open and pedestrians can circulate through the grounds. Townhouse complexes coordinated to go with their towers. A neighborhood dominated by landscape, green open space, and pedestrian circulation instead of cars. Innovative mid-century styles and materials.

A heavy, base-shaft-capital brick historicist building might blend into the downtown historic district, but it would stick out like a sore thumb in southwest.

by crin on Oct 2, 2010 7:08 am • link • report

Not historic because I don't like it, but rather because concrete boxes have already been landmarked. I will be interested in seeing the academic contortion of significance related to the SW concrete boxes when the Hilton, Third Church and Dept of Housing and Urban Development have already received designation.

The fact that it was done at one time at the expense of a once relatively vibrant, if not impoverished community? Codifying bad urbanism should require an extra layer of approval.

by William on Oct 2, 2010 7:11 am • link • report

In one sense, it only makes sense to preserve the best and most sophisticated cultural artifacts of a given period. But, historic districts exist to preserve cultural and historical artifacts of a urban scale. So the academic contortions wouldn't need to be so hard for a good district.

But the Southwest is not a shining example of Modernist urbanism. It's not that sophisticated, not that coherent, and not so meaningful - outside of being a warning. Don't get me wrong, there are parts of SW, like the River Park townhouses and View apartments that are compelling architecture.

It would be a more interesting cultural contribution to fill in gaps or replace bad buildings with architecture made to address more recent issues. we don't need to homogenize the area. Many good buildings have been deftly inserted into other kinds of historic areas. Designers would have to figure out how to do that here.

Now, would a committed regionalist or a context-oriented New Urbanist architect have to build in a brutalist style? or does style matter, in spite of what the Charter says?

by Neil Flanagan on Oct 2, 2010 8:11 am • link • report

@J.D. Hammond
Of course your idea would require several billion dollars. Rosslyn station isn't designed to go from Courthouse to Arlington Cemetery and back. The whole thing would have to be rebuilt. That's a billion dollars right there. You would also need a new Potomac crossing and reconfiguring of Waterfront to enable your silver line to join the green. Find three billion dollars and we can start this conversation.

by movement on Oct 2, 2010 10:48 am • link • report

Another chance to do away with the silly height restrictions. of course, they wont.

by beatbox on Oct 2, 2010 11:11 am • link • report

@J.D. Hammond ... echoing movement's comments, Rosslyn nor Arlington nor Pentagon have the ability to do the turnarounds you want with the vision. They'd have to be rebuilt and new Potomac crossing. Not cheap at all, sorry.

by L. Fairfax on Oct 2, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

Of course your idea would require several billion dollars. Rosslyn station isn't designed to go from Courthouse to Arlington Cemetery and back.

I never suggested Silver Line trains even enter Rosslyn. All that's required is the construction of three turnarounds of a quarter-mile each - one south of Rosslyn, one north of Pentagon, and one south of L'Enfant.

If this is prohibitively expensive, I can't imagine how many billions more the New Blue Line would cost. Frankly, this proposal saves money and serves immediate needs.

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 2, 2010 3:33 pm • link • report

I have some ideas what about these; if your going to spend billions building something at least add some stations.

1 Turn right after Ballston continue down Glebe Road to Potomac Yard meet with Yellow/Blue lines there continue to DC via bridge. Build a way to get to SW from the Yellow line.

2 Turn after Virgina Sq continue down Washington Blvd go through Crystal City and meet with existing lines somewhere between Pentagon City and National Airport. Build a way to get to SW from the Yellow line.

3 Turn right after Ballston continue down Glebe Road, Shirlington RD down Quaker Ln crossing into Fairfax County loop around into Huntington follow Yellow Line to DC. Discontinue Yellow Line.

Create turnarounds and switches throughout this so that if chosen this could be apart of a new Blue line if/when built.

by kk on Oct 2, 2010 5:30 pm • link • report

I think that the height restrictions are good. Metro is already at capacity at the core and height restrictions keep the system from being completely overwhelmed. Height restrictions also let more sunlight come down to the ground.

by Amber on Oct 3, 2010 7:00 pm • link • report

Echoing Amber's comments, the height restrictions give D.C. it's favor. If you were to remove them, you'd lose the sunlight PLUS you'd probably create some nasty wind corridors. And there's the problem that Metro's already at capacity in the core.

If you want tall buildings, (1) try a different city, or (2) go to Reston maybe?

I do like the parks they're building in the SE. I was surprised to find that Claredon, Courthouse, Virginia Square, and Ballston -- while nice and walkable -- lack a lot of green space actually. They're a bit high on the concrete side for me personally... but I suppose that's the trade-off for having a lot of resturants nearby in exchange.

by L. Fairfax on Oct 3, 2010 10:32 pm • link • report

"a shining example of Modernist urbanism" = oxymoron

Modernism by it's very definition was anti-urban and to argue the opposite would involve "academic contortions" of an olympic scale. An object in the park does not a good urban building make.

Historic preservation was created to prevent the whole scale demolition of historic neighborhoods, not just because they where old but because contemporary architects of the time couldn't match quality of work with their new work ie: SW Urban Renewal. Those architects of the 50's-70's where steeped in modernism, much as most academic institutions are still turning out ditto heads, who kling to this outdated philosophy to justify the time and effort they invested to "excell" in those schools.

by Thayer-D on Oct 4, 2010 7:53 am • link • report

I'm not sure I'd consider all of the highlighted area as "downtown" ... especially if SW ends up booming. Maybe we could rename it "midtown" or "uptown"... I don't think of Dupont Circle and those areas as downtown, as far as I'm concerned downtown ends around M street in most places.

by Matt on Oct 4, 2010 10:51 am • link • report

Ah, more predictably hateful language from Thayer. Not that he won't deny it, then claim he's being "tolerant" of modernists while comparing people who enjoy nice, clean lines to "nazis" or "rapists" in the next breath.

by J.D. Hammond on Oct 4, 2010 11:44 am • link • report

JD,
Wow, relax dude! Throwing around words like nazi or rapists betrays a little desperation, don't you think? Remember, these are opinions on aesthetic matters, or in this case urban design. You're an angry fellow, and easy with the insults. If you had any intellectual seriousness you would see I object to modernist urbanism etc. not people. Just because you can't agree to disagree dosen't give you the right to attack people personally.

by Thayer-D on Oct 4, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report

but only a minority of the buildings in Southwest and Near Southeast are historic.

Of course, "over many decades" this view may change.

by Dharun Ravi on Oct 4, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report

@Flanagan: FWIW, the CNU Charter Awards have recognized two infill projects in Crystal City [the Master Plan and Lofts 590], which is arguably an even more thorough (although less architecturally pedigreed) realization of a Corbusian urban vision than the Southwest Urban Renewal Area.

If Southwest is indeed placed on the National Register, though, any new infill would have to "be differentiated." That'll be interesting to watch!

by Payton on Oct 6, 2010 11:05 am • link • report

Besides the SW Freeway cutting much of residential SW (south of the freeway) off from the city, there's a problem with the type of development north of the freeway going up to Independence Avenue. The area between Independence Avenue and the Freeway is filled with poorly designed federal buildings - almost all of which have no commercial space on the ground street level: no shops, no cafes, no convenience, no restaurants - basically nothing. If you walk through that area on weekends, it is undisputedly the most barren and desolate area of the entire city! I feel so sorry for tourists who stay in the 3 hotels in this quadrant walking long barren blocks looking for a place to eat or shop with nothing there! Over the past few years, the "planning" mistakes still continue. A fairly new white office building at the corner of 4th and E Streets, NW is occupied by an "obscure" (DHS?) unlabeled federal agency with absolutely no commercial space on the street level. Prior to this building, there was a row of rundown - but somewhat lively - businesses on this block to give some life to the barren stretch of 4th ST. SW. Across the street, the new DC Forensic Building - while relatively attractive in design compared to the rest of the area - will be yet another institutional government building with no commercial space at the street level as far as I know. Until we can get a mix of private NON government occupants of the office structures (who are not paranoid about security issues on the ground floor street level), I don't forsee much commercial street level activity developing. So the planning mistakes are continuing until this day.

by len on Oct 17, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report