Comments on At McMillan site, compromise could be beautiful - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by neb

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:08:55 EDT

I agree that calling people extreme that want to preserve this setting as a park is wrong. This is not a normal piece of open land - it is a historic site with much to consider.

That said, there is a need to grow the city and the entire site doesn't necessarily need remain open space. The goal should be to instead create a great park for the city but one that is enhanced and that enhances upon the development of both commercial and housing. Urban parks are made great by their great surroundings, and vice versa.

In any event, when one looks at all the parking garages and open land surrounding this site to the north, it does ask the question of whether the McMillan development can be succssful without considering how these site can develop in the future as well, in a pro-walkable, urban neighborhood way. There is not real driver for a restaurant or other business to locate in this development.

Comment by J

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:23:02 EDT

To be fair, it is currently a dead space between Park View and Stronghold and Edgewood. Brookland itself is another 10 blocks east from there on the other side of the metro tracks.

But most people aren't particularly aware of those neighborhoods because there isn't much of anything going on in terms of amenities. I think setting up some of the site as parkland is a good idea, but bringing some vitality to the area with some more retail or cultural amenities would be a boon to the area.

Oh, and I would also love to see the Michigan and Rhode Island Ave. streetcars pushed forward with some of the money from whoever develops the parcel. That would certainly benefit all area residents. But that may be a pipe dream.

Comment by ccort

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 10:57:03 EDT

A portion of the sand filtration site should be preserved as a park because it's a fascinating, unique feature. Building enough residential and commercial is also important to create some vitality, a destination, a place for hospital visitors to go should be a big priority. I've ridden my bike across this area - it's a blank space between destinations. I have avoided using the Washington Hospital Center because of its suburban isolated design and vacant surroundings. Getting the right balance of a great park featuring the sand filtration cylinders with sufficient activity to create a destination is essential. Without enough retail and enough people living here, this area will remain a gulf between Park View and Brookland.

Comment by Canaan

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:36:20 EDT

Underground retail would be a mistake at that site, especially with no walking distance metro stop and not an incredibly dense residential area. Combine that with the relatively hostile north capitol st. and the resevoir/university to the west then all you would have is a bunch of empty retail space underground. No a mix of residential/retail on the eastern half would help calm N. Capitol street while the eastern half along 1st street could by programmed into a park/extra pathfinding network for pedestrians/cyclists trying to go from NE to NW

Comment by Sivad

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:24:03 EDT

I always thought some kind of subterranean retail with a park on top would be the best use. That way its character could be retained. Everything in DC is so benign and uninspired from the Nats Park to the proposed Convention Center hotel. We need something unique. Here is a great opportunity.

Comment by Scott Roberts

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:19:49 EDT

Patrick: Good idea to try obtain more usable green space in the vicinity of the sand filtration site.

But the reality is that the federal government, which owns the actual reservoir site next door, is * never * going to shrink the perimeter of the existing fence around the reservoir.

Good idea, but dead on arrival.

Never going to happen.

The reservoir fence will stay where it is.

Comment by Patrick

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:34:23 EDT

KLee: "Detumesce"? Really? Is that what passes for dialogue for you?

For better or worse, this is an urban site. The truly environmental position is incorporating it into a denser, more urban city that is smaller regionally.

As for the parkland that our city needs generally and our neighborhood needs particularly, the real solution is find a way to tear down the fences around the Reservoir and the Soldiers' Home, and to activate those spaces so that DC residents can enjoy them again. We've already got plenty of green in our part of the city, it's just that none of it is useful.

Comment by to barrie

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:09:34 EDT

Your stats are intentionally misleading. Obviously with the Mall and Rock Creek you can basically say anything you want with green space compared to the whole.

How much empty retail space is there in the neighborhood in direct proximity to the McMillan Site? How much green space per person is there for the people in the neighborhood in direct proximity to the McMillan Site?

In case you missed it, the issues confronting your community arent the same as someone in say Woodley Park.

Comment by Barrie Daneker

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:57:27 EDT

I have attended both salons, and I am a member of the MAG, and have attended most of the public meetings where plans have been put forth for review by all. I firmly believe a viable plan will emerge for the site and I have stood by a multi use plan in which 1/3 is park/green/open/public space, 1/3 residential and 1/3 commercial. I have request that we have integrated independent senior apartments weaved into the townhouse plans, an interactive exhibit like the post office museum geared towards children for part of the historical preservation component, assisted living facility, a 1st class grocer, along with much need service orientated retail.

Traffic concerns need to be addressed and I have urged CM Graham, CM Thomas, and Chair Gray to move phase 3 of the streetcars which is Brookland, up on the list to phase 2. WHC is the 3rd most visited place in DC with over 80,000 people going there daily.

As for the PARK, the sand site was never a park! ItÂ’s been called a park but it is an industrial site covered by grass that the public has never ever has access to. It is covered by 2100 manhole covers and was originally cut off by prickly bushes, then after WWII was surrounded by a fence. Now it's nice to have parks and I am all for reserving 1/3 of the space for that purpose. But spending $80 million on a 25 acre park in DC is not financially responsible. DC has great green space for comparable metro cities in the US.

But here are a few stats on DC parks.

Total Park space 7,617 acres
Total land in DC 39296
Ratio 19.4% is park land ranking DC #2 in densely populated cities
Population of DC 591,833
12.9 acres of parkland per 1000 residents -- Ranking #2
103 play grounds in DC -- 1.7 per 10,000 residents
$153,324,830 spent on parklands per year $259 per person
$139,066,961 spent on park operations per yr. $235 per person
70 Recreation centers -- 2.4 per 20,000 residents
36 swimming pools -- 6.1 per 100,000 residents
15th oldest park in the US -- National Mall 1790
19th oldest park in the US -- Lafayette Sqr. 1804
9th most visited park -- Nation Mall - 10 million visitors
39th most visited park -- Rock Creek Park - 2 million visitors

So letÂ’s be real and practical when we speak about the long awaited development of McMillan. The city invested 9.3 million 30 years ago, itÂ’s cost about $200,000 a year to maintain the parcel, and we have gotten nothing in return for the last 30 years.

I encourage everyone in the area of the site to come out on Nov 6th to the meeting so you too can weight in on the plans.

Comment by klee

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:45:45 EDT

Gee, I wonder why no one is hearing from the "extremists" who want to see the original plans for this parcel fulfilled. Could it be that people who have something to gain from developing it (whether a fat paycheck or a new stroller-friendly coffee shop) have not only louder voices, but plenty of allies to amplify them?

I would like to see a plaque erected with the name of every single person who pushes for this development, so that 50 years from now future DC inhabitants and visitors will know just who was responsible for destroying this unique, irreplaceable piece of history (and undeveloped space).

I can't imagine anyone seriously believes future generations will say, "Thank god they put condos, office space, and retail here!" Nope, instead they'll say, "They were too cheap to preserve it, and too greedy to leave it alone. One generation had to gobble it all up."

Yes, I know the collapse of the real estate market left developistas with acute vasocongestion. But relieving that ailment is not the responsibility of taxpayers. They can deal with it privately ... or better yet, just wait. In time, they will detumesce.

Comment by Fritz

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:40:14 EDT

Given some of the community listserv flame wars going on about the McMillan development - and how it's a contentious issue in some ANC races - I predict that no solution will be acceptable to any majority of factions involved.

Comment by JustMe

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:22:33 EDT

Let us seek such a transformation of this unique property, incorporating the historic structures, resurrected creek, and future streetcar station into a model for durable design that effectively blends the public and the private and harmonizes buildings with the landscape.

"Move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."

MacMillan was and is a job for serious city planners with a commitment to urbanism who have actual vision for the next 50 years. Now, unless "the community" attending these "salons" have any background in that kind of thing, it's hard to say what kind of help they're going to be.

A park isn't actually a bad idea in a city, like DC, that has few open-area urban parks in the model of central park, but all too often, "park" in this town is synonymous with "public safety hazard."

Comment by Patrick

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:08:39 EDT

I live on the other side of the reservoir in Park View. And what I've never understood about the McMillan site debate is the concern about "the architecture and scale of its surroundings."

For the several dozen townhouses along North Capitol and Channing Streets, it seems it would be relatively easy to front the development with townhouses or low 2-4 story buildings that are then stepped up to larger buildings.

Other than that, you have to the west a reservoir protected by barbed-wire fences. To the north, an assortment of anti-urban hospital complexes with as many architectural styles as buildings. Catty-corner you have the Cloisters, protected from its surroundings by fences. And behind the neighborhood of townhouses on North Capitol - sometimes only one house deep - you have two very large cemeteries and suburban-style college campuses.

Given its near-isolation, it seems that for the development to be successful there would need to be a fair number of people working, living and/or shopping there. And it would help developers pay for things like shuttles to Metro stations, accelerated streetcar plans, or open space if they were able to build more densely.

I wish I'd been free to attend one of the salons. I would have liked to hear first hand how "retail and residential" need to be qualified by "building community pride and city identity." It seems to me that - in the middle of the city - shops, homes and offices should be more than incidental concessions to a project of this magnitude.

Comment by Rene

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:46:55 EDT

I think it is interesting to see that the author uses the term extreme to describe those of us who would like the site to be a park.

The site, once upon a time, was a park -- as was the property across the street which is now fenced in. I would love for the entire site to be a park. Yes, it would cost a lot of money, that is definately true, but, it would be an amazing gift to the future. Today in the Washington Post they reported that the security industry has reached an $80 billion annual cost to taxpayers -- when you put the cost of a McMillan park in context to the amount of cash that flows through a government, the cost of making McMillan a park is not insurmountable.

Once upon a time the National Parks were not parks. Try and imagine DC without Rock Creek! People had a vision to protect and perserve these properties for future generations. It was major finanical investment by the citizens and leadership each time the decision was made to create a park. I am grateful that those decisions were made, that people spoke up and garnered political support to protect the natural world.

It isn't extreme to support a park, it is just a different priority, a desire to use public land for a different purpose and a willingness to spend tax dollars to do it.

While you may not agree that the whole site should be a park, I hope you will reconsider using the word extreme when describing those of us who suppport a park.

Comment by jcm

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:25:49 EDT

Has anyone ever explained hiw that Michigan Ave streetcar will work? From the map, it appears to run in both directions on Columbia, which is currently one way.

Comment by anonymous

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:21:09 EDT

Do you know if there has been any feedback from the Howard or Catholic U communities, because I could imagine there being an interest from students wanting to live there?