Posts about McMillan Site

And...: Marion Barry won't block DDOT's move to a new HQ (Housing Complex) ... The McMillan site has an architect (Housing Complex) ... More restrictive zoning creates worse housing bubbles (Matt Yglesias) ... Want to run for ANC? (We Love DC) (Comment · Share)

Plannin' for McMillan: DC will fund planning and traffic studies to give a boost to the McMillan sand filtration site, stalled of late. (Michael Neibauer/WBJ) (Comment · Share)

Public Spaces

North Capitol study recommends parkway and boulevard

by David Alpert • January 8, 2010 1:54 pm

The North Capitol Street study has released a set of recommendations, WashCycle notes.

North Capitol Street study area.

North Capitol Street has gradually evolved into more of a freeway over time, including a 19-acre cloverleaf interchange where it meets Irving Street, which the report calls "an anomaly" in DC. But the surrounding neighborhoods are growing, and the street abuts properties planned for development, including the McMillan Sand Filtration Site and the edge of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Right now, the freeway character makes the street "a barrier" to any users except for automobiles traveling between the neighborhoods. To the south, the report writes, "where North Capitol joins the more typical urban fabric of the city, the street should fill the role of a symbolic entry to the Capital, but largely fails because of the poor streetscape conditions and unwelcoming pedestrian environment: gaps in the sidewalk network, little or no street furnishings, sparse and inconsistent street trees, chain-link fence, and overscaled, highway-style "cobrahead" light fixtures that leave sidewalks dimly lit."

The study recommends a "parkway" character for the segment north of Irving Street, similar to Rock Creek Parkway with a wide hiker-biker trail along side (hopefully wider and less windy than Rock Creek's), and an "urban boulevard" to the south, with a median, better sidewalks and lighting, and furniture and street trees similar to DC's other axial boulevards.

Renderings of North Capitol Street north of Irving Street now (left) and proposed (right).

Renderings of North Capitol Street south of Irving Street now (left) and proposed (right).

For the cloverleaf itself, the study doesn't choose between the three options, the parkway/memorial, the circle, and the "four corners." I recommended the circle, which has the most development potential ($188 million) but also the least parkland (2.7 acres). The cheaper "four corners" option, with 10 acres of parkland, splits it into four pieces with a major road cutting through, and the parkway/memorial option is both the most expensive and the least likely to develop a usable sense of place.

The study team also looked at the possibility of realigning North Capitol to follow the straight axis from the Capitol. A realigned North Capitol could become a main street for the new AFRH development instead of having it turn its back on the street. However, they determined that it's infeasible because of historic buildings a cemetery, and part of AFRH's grounds in the way, and the fact that the AFRH planning has already progressed very far. An at-grade intersection at Irving and North Capitol was also rejected because of traffic volumes.

19 comments — Share	— tags: AFRH, DC, McMillan site, North Capitol, public spaces, walkability

Public Spaces

Build a circle at North Capitol and Irving

by David Alpert • May 5, 2009 1:12 pm

DC and federal officials and a team of consultants have created three options for redesigning the cloverleaf interchange at the intersection of North Capitol and Irving Streets. Dubbed the "Memorial in the Park," "Center of Centers," and "Four Corners," each continues the grade separation of east-west and north-south traffic while also trying to create a more hospitable area for people.

North Capitol Cloverleaf overlaid onto Dupont Circle for scale comparison.

The interchange is DC's only traditional freeway cloverleaf interchange, occupying about 19 acres in what is becoming a more urban, more walkable part of the city. The adjacent Armed Forces Retirement Home plans to develop its southeastern corner, adjacent to the cloverleaf, into mixed-use buildings to fund its ongoing operations. Catholic University is growing, and the nearby McMillan Sand Filtration site will become a new neighborhood of its own as well.

The interchange is part of a short freeway piece of North Capitol between more urban segments to the north and south. It encourages high-speed traffic and discourages pedestrians and bicyclists. It generates a large "dead zone" in the surrounding bus network. And it creates inaccessible empty space instead of more valuable parkland that people can actually use.

The study team developed three alternatives. One would reroute the roads to the southeast, creating a park space for a large memorial and giving the roads a "parkway" design. The park would be 7.5 acres, about the same size as Capitol Hill's Lincoln Park. It's also the most expensive of the four, likely costing $40-45 million.

The second option would build a circle with 2.6 acres of green space in the center, a little more than Dupont Circle's 2.3. Like Dupont, one roadway (Irving) would pass underneath, while the other (North Capitol) would use the circle along with turning movements. This would probably cost $37-41 million.

The third would divide the green space into four corner parks, with the larger two about the same size as the Navy Memorial at one acre. A ring road would let vehicles transfer between the two roads. This option is the cheapest, at an estimated $28-31 million. It'd also be possible to also leave out the ring of buildings, creating more empty space instead of stores and residences.

Left to right, top to bottom: The current North Capitol interchange; the "parkway/memorial" option; the "circle" option; the "four corners" option.

According to the study team, replacing the interchange with a simple at-grade intersection would require each roadway to have ten lanes, and even then cars would take longer to move through the intersection, not to mention the very long pedestrian crossing times.

DC should choose the circle design. It builds on the existing L'Enfant public space vocabulary of Washington. The well-designed circles mix public parks and vehicular movements in a generally pleasing balance. However, the circle actually be circular. An oval shape might help the cars move through the area a bit more quickly, but at the cost of some parkland. Also, encouraging cars to slow down through the area would improve this public space. A circle works fine for DC's existing circles, and would preserve the continuity across the city.

I'm also curious if the study team evaluated having both roadways pass underneath the circle, meeting at a traffic light underground while turning cars still use the circle. I've always wondered if that would improve Dupont Circle. It would slow traffic passing through somewhat, but since cars wouldn't have to wait for left turning movements, would delay drivers far less than a regular at-grade intersection.

The "memorial" design looks too much like the Kennedy Center's "ramp spaghetti" and other contemporaneous designs that aren't really pedestrian-friendly. That design creates a park that would serve the AFRH development well, but cuts the park off from the other sides. One day, the VA Medical Center or the houses to the southeast could become more walkable in design, and the interchange should not hinder that possibility. Likewise, residents of the future McMillan site development should be able to walk to this plaza without passing over and under ramps clearly designed for vehicles above all.

The "four corners" is okay, but the park is either too small or too large. If built, the ring of buildings cuts off the parks from the roadway, decreasing "eyes on the street" and making the park into more of a courtyard for the buildings. Without the buildings, it's just a larger version of the circle with an uncrossable road cutting it in two. There are no crosswalks on North Capitol in the middle, meaning people will have to walk all the way to one end to cross, or dash dangerously across midblock.

The study also briefly considers Irving and North Capitol outside the cloverleaf. It recommends redesigning North Capitol into a greenway with a median and hiker-biker sidepath north of the cloverleaf, and into an urban boulevard with wide sidewalks and off-peak parking south of the cloverleaf. Other recommendations include reducing travel lanes on Irving to add a bicycle lane, and removing the "slip lanes" to make the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Irving Street a more pedestrian-friendly, 90-degree standard intersection. To help drivers, it recommends widening Michigan Avenue slightly at 1st Street, NW to lengthen the turn lanes and add protected left turn phases to the traffic lights.

All of the designs show potential locations for stops on a future Irving Street transit line. For now, that could mean a rerouted H bus or a future Circulator, but in the future this corridor should get light rail or a streetcar running from Woodley Park to Brookland. Metro is also considering giving it the "Priority Bus Corridor" treatment like 16th Street or Georgia Avenue; the 80 bus on North Capitol is already on the priority corridor list, though at the very bottom.

38 comments Share	— tags: AFRH, Catholic University, DC, McMillan site, NCPC, North Capitol, public spaces, walkability

Development

Bloomingdale is not Alaskan tundra

by David Alpert • January 6, 2009 11:21 am

Ryan Avent had the same reaction I did to the new No Drilling at McMillan blog. Its intro reads,

This looks pretty nice to me.
This site is dedicated to saving 25 acres of green space in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. While people who say they care about the environment are outraged about drilling in the northern tundra of Alaska, there seems to be little concern for turning 25 acres of green space in the nation's capital into concrete and asphalt. Once it is developed it will be lost forever.

Protecting the environment is much more complex than a simple "development bad, open space good" mantra. Enabling more people to live in the city lets more people choose a sustainable lifestyle. It allows people to live a 20-minute bus ride from work instead of a 60-minute drive. It also lowers pressure to develop distant farms and forests in western Maryland and central Virginia.

Avent adds,

The GOP wants to drill in Alaska to unearth oil, needed to fuel automobiles, needed to maintain a drivable way of life, because there are insufficient quantities of dense, walkable, urban developments in this country, such as that proposed for the McMillan site. Sigh.

Ironically, 64% of responders of the little poll in the sidebar of the site voted for development, even though that option is worded in a slanted way. The option reads, "Allow pre-selected private corporations to maximize their profits by maximizing square footage and turning as much of this green space into concrete and asphalt as possible." Of course, he could have written, "Enable more people to live in DC by integrating open space, housing, and retail into a current dead zone in the middle of our neighborhoods, ensuring more customers for our neighborhood businesses." But that's not how the blog's author, Paul Kirk, sees it.

Kirk has some specific complaints, some of which may be valid. The plan only includes one through street across the site, which does create a bit of a superblock feel. Could the public plazas abut roads instead of creating completely separate areas that might end up deserted and dangerous at night? On the other hand, more streets would actually pave more of the site, while these pedestrian allées increase the open, green space. According to Tania Jackson of Jair Lynch, the development group, they designed many of the residences to face this open space to create "eyes on the street" at all hours. Plus, improving transit to this area is a good idea. But "More Transit Amid the Drilling At McMillan" is not the name of the blog.

Kirk also raises hysteria over including affordable housing:

Residential buildings that are four stories high? Just how many low-income units are intended for this project? ... It's about time other neighborhoods, like Georgetown and upper Northwest shoulder some of the burden of supplying housing for people that don't have jobs. There are already enough people walking around all day and night with nothing better to do than loiter, rob, steal, deal drugs, assault and murder us. It is not my opinion that low-income housing is a magnet for these people, it is a well-documented fact of life in the city.

Actually, no. New affordable housing we create in DC goes to people like police officers, teachers, and the many other people with good, important, but not high-paying jobs. There are many senior citizens in the area who want to stay in their neighborhood but can't afford much of the housing as Bloomingdale's prices have risen.

The McMillan team and the city haven't finalized the percentages of affordable housing and the income eligibility levels. They should at least exceed the the new inclusionary zoning rules, which set aside only 12-15% of units for low and moderate income units. Most of those (half for low rise buildings and all for high rise buildings) can go to households making up to 80% of Area Median Income (around $80,000 for a family of four), with the rest reserved for households at 50% AMI (around $50,000).

And yes, all parts of the city should do their part for housing affordability. That's why a citywide inclusionary zoning policy is important, and why we should have mixed-income housing in every project on public land anywhere in the city.

At the beginning of December, I bought a Christmas tree at the Ross Elementary School in Dupont. The parent volunteering there lives in Bloomingdale, where he and his family bought their house around ten years ago. Today, he said, they wouldn't be able to afford a townhouse in Bloomingdale. Adding housing opportunities for more families like his will make Bloomingdale safer and better, not more dangerous. And it's a far better use of a giant empty field that right now serves as little more than an interesting visual curiosity to people speeding through the area on Michigan Avenue.

55 comments — Share	— tags: affordable housing, anti neighbors, Bloomingdale, DC, environment, McMillan site

Transit

How about a North Capitol Red Line branch?

by Paul Sieczkowski • January 4, 2009 10:50 am

Large mixed-use development projects at the McMillan Sand Filtration site and Armed Forces Retirement Home will add density and thousands of residential units to an area far from Metro. Current Bloomingdale residents are concerned about increased traffic, as the area is already a bottleneck, pinched between parks, universities and cemeteries that have severed the street grids. Upstart anti-McMillan development blog No Drilling at McMillan cites an old WMATA study stating that the Washington Hospital Center is the "most dense commuter destination not served by transit rail." Can we we add some transit serving this area?

McMillan development proposal.

Richard Layman suggests that DC should require these developers to pay into a fund for future transit enhancement, as Arlington County often does. Streetcars or priority bus corridors along the congested North Capitol Street are distinct and viable possibilities.

But maybe it's worth thinking bigger: how about heavy rail using the Red Line? The Northeast leg of the Red Line followed the railroad right of way rather than a path to maximize TOD, such as Georgia Avenue. Many residents of Brookland and Takoma strongly oppose development, and neither is among the top stations in ridership. What about a separate branch of the Red Line?

Alternating eastbound Red Line trains could split off after the New York Avenue station and service new stations before ultimately linking back up at Silver Spring. This would increase the coverage of Metro to DC residents and add TOD opportunities with minimal impact to travel times for suburban commuters headed downtown and to NoMa. In the long run, this segment could get its own service entirely as part of a possible Brown Line.

View Larger Map

Top priorities for the North Capitol route include serving the new developments and the hospital, the commercial nodes of existing communities, preserving the Fort Totten Green Line transfer, and accessing areas with more opportunity for infill stations in the future. Along the existing Red Line track I also added a Kansas Avenue infill station, located in an area of light industrial that could be prime for TOD redevelopment.

Stations along this route could include:

Bloomingdale: Rhode Island Ave at First Street NW
McMillan: Michigan Ave at First Street NW
AFRH: Irving Street NW at North Capitol Street
Fort Totten: On parallel platform
Brightwood: Missouri Ave at Georgia Ave NW

Future infill stations could go at commerical nodes like Kennedy Street at 3rd Street NW, Georgia Ave at Piney Branch NW, and Georgia Ave at Kalmia Road NW.

What's the best way to serve the cluster of McMillian, AFRH, and Washington Hospital Center? With the Hospital at the physical midpoint, one station to serve these three areas would be the least costly. However, the groups making the most trips would probably be, first, residents of the new communities, then hospital workers, retail customers of the new developments, and finally patients. Residents and retail customers would be more sensitive to long walks or shuttle buses, while workers are more likely to view a shuttle that connected the two nearby metro stations and circulated the hospital campus as an amenity.

This concept is admittedly off the cuff. I haven't vetted it rigorously by evaluating bus ridership and capital costs. Streetcars may be more cost-effective. However, while I do support streetcars across the city, I would also like to see us continue to expand heavy rail. This concept could extend the reach of heavy rail with minimal disruption to core capacity. I thought it was worth serving up in raw form for discussion. I welcome feedback and will work it into further refinement of this concept.