Development
"Save our sprawl" in Brookland
Ryan Avent has been writing about local neighborhood opposition to development in his neighborhood of Brookland. As in Takoma, Metro and DC's Office of Planning want to develop poorly utilized, unattractive land that's mostly parking lots and unusable open space into residences and public plazas.
And as in Takoma, neighbors are up in arms about preserving the small-town feel of their neighborhoods. As Ryan writes,
Brookland is a 15 minute Metro ride away from the second most expensive central business district in the country. It’s a 5 minute Metro ride away from the New York Avenue Metro station, which will soon be the center of one of the densest office and residential areas in the city. Brookland is primarily made up of single-family, detached, bungalow style housing.I appreciate that people moved to a sleepy neighborhood and now they want to keep it the way it was. But with the limited public transit we have, we should be building higher density next to rail stations to take advantage of the service that exists today (especially since it's so expensive to build more).
The Brookland proposal doesn't aim to raze the neighborhood and put in high rises, just to build a few higher density buildings right at the station. I'd rather something a little more interesting than the standard donut-shaped blocks, but it's at least an urban form more suitable to a transit stop in a major city, unlike the suburban parking lots and voids we have today.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
by Alex B. on May 12, 2008 1:49 pm • link • report
by Derek Swanson on May 12, 2008 3:56 pm • link • report
"Capitalize on the presence of the Metro stations at Rhode Island Avenue, Brookland/CUA, and Fort Totten, to provide new transit-oriented housing, community services, and jobs. New development around each of these three stations is strongly supported. The District will coordinate with WMATA
to ensure that the design, density, and type of housing or other proposed development at these stations is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; respects community concerns and feedback; serves a variety of household incomes; and mitigates impacts on parking, traffic, and public services.
Development shall comply with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the compatibility of new land uses with established development, the provision of appropriate open space, and mitigation of impacts on traffic, parking, and public services."
I expect there to be some extensive development, but the community at meeting after meeting with the office of planning as asked for 2 things that aren't in this plan. Preservation of some green space in the proposed area of development and to scale the development up. Start small where directly adjacent to existing single family homes, like 2-3 story town homes or condo units, allowing for truly dense 7-8 story buildings at the furthest distance from existing homes. The plan does not preserve any green space by definition. The office of planning does point out that developers could be encouraged to create public plazas, but what developer will ever build shorter than they have to or use anything less than every square inch they can. The small area plan needs to require these things or we will see 6 story buildings popping up on what used to be a tree filled park across the street from single family homes. I expect dense development and expect it, but the comprehensive plan does not require the level of density that the proposed small area plan calls for. Few members of the community have objected to any development, we've just asked for it to be sensitive to existing homes, and to preserve some green space.
Just a note, the map you have posted doesn't show the last draft version.
by Mary M Melchior on May 12, 2008 6:07 pm • link • report
by KK on May 13, 2008 2:09 am • link • report
Add a Comment