Development
McMillan visions take shape
Three concept ideas for the McMillan Sand Filtration site were presented Saturday. All designs attempt to meld commercial, retail, open space, and residential, while responding to community feedback. Still, some residents remain fundamentally skeptical after so many failed attempts at development.
Model of one of three options. Photo by the author.
At this third community meeting, hosted by development team "Vision McMillan," plans began to take shape. The design team of Matt Bell of EEK and Warren Byrd of Nelson Byrd Woltz presented general designs of for the site and sought feedback.
Area residents are actively participating in the meetings, many remain skeptical. As these plans move from spoken ideas onto paper, some residents expressed concerns that they look too similar to previous designs presented, all of which ultimately were scrapped.
The design team presented three very basic plans, all of which include a mix of retail, office, open space, row houses and multi-family residential (condos, apartments and/or senior living). Reflecting community feedback, the taller office buildings are located to the northwest corner of the site, near First Street, NW and Michigan Avenue. The plans call for lower buildings and setbacks in the east to match the row houses across North Capitol Street in Stronghold.
Three possible configurations for the site. Photo by the author.
All plans include a grocery store, likely facing North Capitol with parking on the roof or below ground, as well as probably some protected angled or parallel parking, like on Connecticut Avenue in Cleveland Park. Developer Jair Lynch, however, offered some words of caution in his remarks on the grocery store. Comparing statistics of Bloomingdale and surrounding areas with Georgetown and Barracks Row, he made the case that the site is not yet at the point where locating a grocery store there would an obvious choice for a retailer based on include median income, dollars per mouth spent on groceries, and dollars spent dining out.
A representative of DC's Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development assured one group that there would be space for community activities in the site as well, probably located within the retail areas.
The southern half of the site will have approximately 150 row houses and open space, the configuration of which was the focus of much of the discussion. Residents voted with stickers on sheets of paper to indicate what they'd like to see reflected in the final design.
Rendering of North Capitol and Michigan. Photo by the author.
Talk of "daylighting" Tiber Creek, which runs dozens of feet below the southeast corner of the site, seems to have been deemed unworkable, although water features that recall the creek were discussed.
Area residents seemed split on how to configure the row houses and open space. Some prefer houses on the south portion of the site, in order to continue the Bloomingdale neighborhood, others would like to see the open space separate the new from the old, to delineate the difference between traditional Bloomingdale and the historic McMillan site.
The most iconic element of the McMillan site is the silos and the two brick "service courts" that surround them. All three designs seem to using the north court for a driveway, while keeping the silos. The south court seems to be destined to be more open, probably integrated with adjacent open space.
Concept view from within preserved cell. Photo by the author.
Each cell is about an acre, or about twice the square footage of the entire Spy Museum. The general talk seemed to be around preserving two or three of the approximately 25 cells on the site.
Residents seemed to appreciate this open, collaborative process, but at times displayed disdain that so much of the site (approximately two-thirds) would be used for new buildings. Other lingering criticisms of redevelopment include the increased traffic the development is sure to bring and storm water runoff issues, because Bloomingdale has a history of flooding downstream of the site. It also remains to be seen what effect, if any, the transfer of power to Mayor-elect Gray would have on site plans.
The next and final community meeting is set for Saturday, December 4th where presumably more detailed plans will emerge.
 | Nolan Treadway is Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for district 5C-07, covering parts of Woodridge and Langdon neighborhoods in Northeast DC. By day Nolan works at Netroots Nation and by night he hangs out with his wife, Joan, their daughter.    |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
by Gavin on Nov 22, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report
I think folks generally like dense development, and would be for it in this case, except that we have no solid assurance if/when Circulators and Streetcars will actually get to McMillan. Without those elements, the development is somewhat isolated and it's residents, I think, would be more car-dependent than transit-dependent.
And while McMillan is on the long-term Streetcar plan, that isn't very reassuring if the development is going to go up years before the Michigan Ave streetcar line gets built. (I'm not seeing where it is on the Circulator plan, but I could be missing that)
Perhaps we'll get something in writing from the city as to when we can expect these transit elements to service the new McMillan development. It would probably be premature to expect something like that at this point in the process, so we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
by Nolan on Nov 22, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report
Plans for development should go hand-in-hand with plans to serve the development with adequate transit. Both the city and the developers should be pushing for that.
by Gavin on Nov 22, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report
by Eric on Nov 22, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report
And the point I was trying to make (not very well, it seems) is that I'd like some more concrete assurances that transit will follow (or, better yet, be built along side) McMillan development.
The point that I made in the original post was trying to capture the feelings of some residents. Some people feel like giving up 2/3rds of the site for commercial development while only getting 1/3rd back in open/park space is a bad deal. Certainly one can argue for MORE density, as opposed to less, but I didn't hear anyone at the meetings I've been to lament the LACK of density. (which, I guess, raises the issue Yglaisas brings up, but I still don't buy that we're ever going to live in a world where future, as-yet-unnamed people are going to be a strong voice for anything)
by Nolan on Nov 22, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report
by Gavin on Nov 22, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
I understand your point, but the Washington Hospital Center is not a mixed used destination point on the radar of most people who don't work there (of which there are only about 2,000) or who, unfortunately, have to visit. It is essentially a gated community (literally, and gated via the highway-like streets upon which it makes its home), much like Walter Reed, minus the military presence and highways, so I think you know what people mean when they say that the reason there isn't transit is because a neighborhood doesn't really exist there. Washington Hospital Center isn't a neighborhood, and wasn't developed oriented to be within one. Essentially, it's a whole 'nother fish to fry to talk about integrating the Hospital Center into this McMillan plan. But perhaps a densely developed McMillan site (and it's going to happen, with or without everyone in the community on board) is really what's needed to make sure that quality high-density transit infrastructure is constructed to envelope both sides of Michigan Ave into the public transit sphere (exclusing buses, of course).
by Eric on Nov 22, 2010 6:13 pm • link • report
I hadn't been thinking of McMillan as a dense development onto itself, I was thinking of it as a part of Bloomingdale (as it is now) and how much I like the character of the neighborhood now.
In some ways the developers really try to address both concerns here, with some higher-density part (primarily in the north, toward the hospital) as as well as row houses (primarily in the south, toward Bloomingdale's residents and Stronghold). And I think row houses are a totally appropriate density for the site, but I sense you'd like to see more than that - which is certainly your right.
by Nolan on Nov 22, 2010 7:27 pm • link • report
In the Brookland small area plan deliberations, I kept making the point of proffers and development plans at McMillan and the AFRH being tied to transportation improvements. This point never got put into the plan--DCOP was wimpy wimpy on this point.
It's what Arlington and Alexandria are doing wrt intense development at the Potomac Yards site. Basically, they say the transportation capacity of the area is maxed out--only with transportation demand management strategies and transit improvements (infill subway station, streetcar) will we allow for denser development, and you have to pay for (most of) it...
DC doesn't tie approvals for massive developments in the same way.
Frankly, from an economic development standpoint, DC should make the crosstown streetcar from Woodley to Brookland an absolute priority (although for years I have argued this line should be extended both west and east). That allows intense development at McMillan and AFRH--in fact making those projects more likely--as well as other area improvements--redoing the Irving/N. Capitol cloverleaf, more intense development at the Brookland station area abutting CUA, diverting east-west car trips to transit, maybe even reducing the need for a vast shuttle bus system for WHC, as well as reducing the need for shuttles for Trinity and Howard.
WRT Gavin's point about Glenwood Cemetery as an example, I have made a similar argument for years, that the various campuses in Brookland (cemeteries, universities, Franciscan Monastery, other institutions) give the area a vast amount of open space, far more than most other areas in the city, and to not acknowledge this space as part of the environment there is disingenuous.
by Richard Layman on Nov 23, 2010 7:19 am • link • report
No one who lives in this community can be against density. I have 72 houses on my block alone. I can leap from my front porch to my neighbor's front porch (if we all didn't have railings around our porches). At the same time, I would love to protect parkland for future, unborn generations, so they can do what I have never been able to do, and that is leave my house and walk to a nice park to hang out with kids, family and friends.
Thanks Mr. Treadway for your summary post. I appreciate it. I am not going to the meetings -- I did my time in grade last time community planning occurred (remember all those weekends we spent?) and really can't imagine going through all that again, just to continue to walk by the property and feel sad that all that beautiful green space continues to be kept locked away behind fencing.
by rene on Nov 23, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report
Several of the Vision McMIllan Partners were also in attendance, which I think put a damper on opportunities for open dialogue among participants in certain instances. Do we know how many members of the MAG were in attendance?
Finally, I wanted to remind folks that all of the documents, partner info, and notes from previous meetings are available at http://www.wikiplanning.org/ (requires a log in). I'm looking forward to the next meeting!
by EmilyHaHa on Nov 23, 2010 1:37 pm • link • report
If you believe these meetings are about getting input from the neighborhood, consider the amount of time we had to listen to all of their sales pitches vs the amount of time people had an opportunity to speak. Consider how similar these plans are to the last plan submitted by this same developer. Consider there is no solution to the massive increase in vehicle traffic. Consider there is no plan to mitigate the impact of stormwater when developers are allowed to eliminate 25 acres of water storage. The developer is scrambling to do one thing right now, which is to 'bank' its investment by getting additional funding and control over this site.
The Bethesda-based developer will never have to deal with traffic and flooding. They simply want an open-ended right to develop, re-sell and dispose of this public property in a manner that maximizes their profit. That is why they are proposing so little usable park space and such tall buildings.
The best solution for this site would be to announce an international competition which would include a fixed price and a financial plan which can be evaluated comparatively. There are hundreds of development companies that have their own sources of funds and could turn this unused space into a variety of uses. For example, a group from Virginia already approached the City with an unsolicited proposal which would not have required taxpayers to pay $40 million to prepare the site. (I think they were called Greenvest?) Without a competition, this developer can continue to go through the motions of involving the community while all the time it is calculating how much profit can be extracted from this publicly-owned property.
Without any competition, we are faced with an imperial developer who cannot be blamed when the City has turned over all responsibility for development, including waiving existing historic, traffic and stormwater plans in favor of multi-story office buildings and subsidized housing. In fact, the City has allowed this developer to schedule and control all aspects of the conversation, which is why we keep hearing how great this massive development will be for our little neighborhood.
Maybe our ANC could host a neighborhood meeting managed by a moderator NOT selected and paid by the Bethesda developer? Maybe we could hear from Tony Norman about the Park Committee and from some experts in transportation and stormwater who could shed some light on how this development could be done in a manner that does not ruin Bloomingdale.
This property has the potential to provide revenues to the City, jobs to the neighborhood and a great improvement for those who would like to walk to various retail establishments. It is also an opportunity to open access to the reservoir (never mentioned), create a view of the Mall (never mentioned), and store water as a buffer to current and future flooding (not a priority). We cannot blame the Bethesda developer for wanting to maximize their profits and ignoring the ascetic and practical opportunities that would make this site a world class destination. We will have ourselves to blame if we allow the City to transfer additional resources and power to this developer whose first priority is to extact profits by building another mundane version of Shirlington here in the nation's capital.
by Don M on Nov 25, 2010 9:43 am • link • report
Add a Comment