March 6, 2006
Battle Developing Over Old Soldiers' Home Land
The Post fired a shot this Sunday in the growing fight over a land-use plan for the campus of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and some residents of area neighborhoods are preparing their own response.
Established in 1851, the Old Soldiers' Home, which once served as Lincoln's summer Presidential residence, was originally surrounded by 500 acres of open land amid the neighborhoods of Park View and Petworth, with Brookland off to the east. The land is dotted with trees and ponds, a golf course, random military paraphernalia, and the Retirement Home, where generations of soldiers returning from war have lived. The home still operates under the aegis of the Department of Defense (but without taxpayer funding), treating veterans for a host of medical problems, both age- and combat-related. The Retirement Home's growing medical costs are a key driver of plans for development (click here to see a recent Post news story on the project and neighborhood opposition).
According to the Post, the new development plans call for "condominiums, shops, a hotel, embassies, and medical and office buildings" spread around the southern and eastern edges of the property, with the central and northern portions reserved for green space and the Retirement Home. Some residents are incensed by the plan, which they believe is too dense and too lacking in open space. They have been gearing up to fight the project, and Council-member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) has involved himself in the battle. Portions of the campus have been previously developed, notably in the construction of the vast hospital complex to the south and the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to the east. Most recently 46 acres of land were sold to nearby Catholic University at a cost of $22 million, a transaction which revealed to the Home's operators how valuable their land had become.
On Sunday, the Post aired an opinion on the matter, publishing a column by the Home's Chief Operating Officer, Timothy Cox, that took opponents of the plan to task for fighting the development plan. The piece disputed many of the residents' points, saying their fears are overblown, that ample untouched space exists in the immediate area which could be turned into parkland, and that the money raised in the land development will be used to support ailing veterans. Most amusingly, Cox acidly pointed out that inflows of new residents have been a fairly large factor in increasing the density of the neighborhoods and reducing open space.
Opposed neighborhood residents are not taking the piece lying down. DCist has received word that a press conference is in the works for this Sunday, during which the proposals of the Home will be disputed. It seems highly likely that the intensity of these disagreements will only increase.
Personally, I find it somewhat difficult to understand opposition to the plan, though I will be paying close attention to arguments made on both sides. The open space is currently integrated into the city quite poorly, and there is no shortage of open, undeveloped land around the southern hospital complex and the Soldiers' Home that could easily be turned into public park area. While density has increased to the west of the land, the whole central area under discussion seems strikingly under-used and out of place in an urban environment. As a Brookland resident living within eyeshot of the area under discussion, I welcome the plan.
My mind remains open, however, and DCist will continue to follow the debate as it develops.
Picture of Lincoln Cottage taken from nationaltrust.org.
|
the catholic church got freeland and so did the washington hospital center. freeland. and now the land is suddenly sacred? sell the land, endow the foundation, develope the land and screw all the new homeowners!
you may want to edit for clarity, "the Post aired an opinion" as The Post did NOT air an opinion - rather the Old Soldiers' Home aired an opinion and The Post printed it.
I'm using "aired" as a synonym for "printed." I think it's clear, as the paragraph goes on to say exactly who wrote the column.
I may be slow, but it wasn't until I was much lower that I realized that that guy was from the Old Soldier's Home. I saw the word Home and thought is was some section of the Post that I didn't know about (although I also thought "wow I didn't know each section had it's own chief operating officer").
Like I said, I could just be very slow, but normally when someone is "airing" an opinion, it's their own. A better word would have been "carried".
i'll kind of go with it, but its certainly not a good synonym to use, especially since you start your post (haha, no pun intended) with "The Post fired a shot..." that certainly implies that The Post is making their opinion known.
why not keep it simple and clear and write "On Sunday The Post printed a column by the Old Soldiers' Home's Chief Operating Officer, Timothy Coxby in their Outlook section..."
your opening paragraph even ends with "...and some residents of area neighborhoods are preparing their own response."
who are they responding to?
Apparently The Post, since you identify no one else who has taken a postion until your 4th paragraph.
this is shaping up to be a contentious neighborhood issue, why fan the flames with poor word choices?
I do appreciate the editorial advice. I stand by my wording, however. It says just what I want it to say.
Just to make it clear - Most of the development is set for the western side of the property, which is already fairly dense. Residents in that area are concerned about parking, traffic and greenspace in that area, and further dense development is only going to make these worse, not better.
And the development on the eastern side is mostly institutional in nature (an expansion of the hospital center), and isn't going to improve anything for Brookland residents, so why are you for it?
For one thing, I have a difficult time understanding the premises of your argument. Too dense? It's in the middle of the city, and Georgia Ave is one of the city's busy commercial thoroughfares. I'm not sure what you guys thought you were getting when you moved there, but it was never meant to be the burbs. And parking problems? Compared to residential areas ten blocks west of there, parking is a dream.
My question is, why are you against it? This isn't going to be mid-town, and it's in the heart of a developing urban core. I'm sorry, but this strikes me as knee-jerk NIMBYism of the worst kind.
I just bought a house in Petworth (and moved in on Friday) three blocks from the Old Soldier's Home. Maybe I'm completely naive about development and what it means for my community, but I can't for the life of me see how development of a massive closed off space is a bad thing? The commercial and residential ventures that will appear on the Home's land (not to mention if they get Embassies to move there) will only increase property values and benefit all residents positively in the long run. I'd also assume that we will be benefitted in the sort term too -- as the development will probably bring commercial amenities much closer to my house.
I might be a noob, but I'm all for the development.
Plain and simple, is this a city, or sleepy bedroom community for Tysons? Like it or not, DC has to adjust to the population and devlopment situation just as much as the folks in the inner burbs. Smart growth ain't just for them. We need to be building upward and increasing density.
Period.
Lord I hate NIMBYs.
It seems a shame to lose such huge open space to "130 foot high" buildings in a neighborhood of relatively modest sized rowhouses. I don't see NIMBYism in wanting to preserve the architectural character and scale of a neighborhood. And if people just outside of eyeshot of the development are for it just to improve their own property values, how's that more noble than the supposed NIMBYers.
I'd rather see that land turned into a Central Park style public park, with open grass lawns and playing fields. There are plenty of ugly midrise buildings in this town that can be knocked down to create more, why permantly destroy open fields instead?
I'm also in favor of the development. If you look at a map of DC, development is clustered in the NW quadrant, with much less density in NE. The area immediately surrounding the Soldier's Home, CUA, WHC, etc is a tangled mess of auto-centric development and it could use a lot more density to make it moer pedestrian friendly. It's time to spread out some of the development pressure from NW to NE. If DC is going to add more residents to bulk up the tax base and reduce sprawl in surrounding areas, we're all going to have to see some increase in density.
I saw the same thing happen when the Feds decided to make the Presidio in San Francisco the only self sustaining national park. The old military grounds -- barracks, a vet hospital -- had to be put to private use. The neighbors through a fit. But in the end, they didn't have a lot to say about it. And now, with a restored wetlands, a new state-of-the-art campus for George Lucas's Industrial Light and Magic, the noise has quieted. Seems they got a pretty good thing out of all of this. And their property values where already through the roof (DiFi and Robin Williams are neighbors).
Unfortunately, in a city like DC or San Francisco that likes to say how much they hate sprawl but at the same time throws around "Manhattanization" as pejorative, I think this is always going to be the first reaction.
The top priority is going to have to be to make people feel involved in the decision. Even if the plan doesn't change much.
Reid, I see your point, but:
1) 130 feet ain't all that tall.
2) Development doesn't mean K Street; no one's talking about putting hulking concrete monstrosities there.
3) The land, as it is now, doesn't work. These aren't open fields where deer and children run free. It's a confused mess. Most of it is fenced off. It's not pulled together in any particular way.
4) D.C. has the Mall. It has Rock Creek. And with the development plan it will have a substantial amount of open, green space available to neighborhood residents.
How does a denser DC limit sprawl? Sprawl is the result of the economic and land management policies of the surrounding counties. I would think that:
A. They're going to pursue those policies regardless of how DC uses a hundred acres of fields.
B. Wouldn't more density in the city create less demand in the suburbs? Wouldn't that then decrease the incentive of the suburbs to themselves become more dense? Thus actually increasing sprawl rather than decreasing it.
Besides, DC rarely does mid-rise developments with any finesse. It's greatest assets are beautiful low-rise neighborhoods. I understand DC's tax base needs to be expanded, but there are plenty of awful developments that can be razed and rebuilt that will produce that expansion without further destroying DC's open space.
The proposed development by AFRH includes 9,000,000 square feet of development, making it one of the largest developments in DC. So, although 130 feet doesn't sound bad, it’s a massive development that the communities surrounding the development want some involvement in. The neighborhoods feel they are being left out of the process of this neighborhood changing development, and that lack of involvement is what you are seeing playing out now. As a member of the community, I don't believe the community is against development, they just want input into the process.
There have been some good discussions of this topic on the Petworth News blog - http://petworthnews.blogs.com/petworth_news/.
Isn't 130 feet roughly 10-11 stories? In a neighborhood of 3-4 story homes?
As I just said, DC rarely does 10-11 story buildings that well. Where are such buildings that don't have the charm of K st?
It's right across the street from the hospital complex. Somehow residents have managed living next to those tall buildings (complete with medical helicopter). Howard U, Catholic U, and the development that flows down the Red Line toward downtown are all close by, as are the taller residential buildings around the Georgia Avenue and Columbia Heights Metro stations.
As for attractive taller buildings in D.C., I can only say look up, for the love of god. There are hundreds.
ahh, the feds. this is what the district government struggles against everyday. nobody is dc has a seat at the table.
Well I'm sure others will believe this is nitpicky- that is an opinion they are free to "air." DCvoterboy was right. When one airs an opinion or grievence the implied meaning is that a belief/feeling held by the subject is being expressed. You can go ahead and use "air" as a synonym for "print" but only if I can use "candle" as a synonym for "cupcake." To "air" something is to broadcast it over the airwaves, not to print it. Sorry, I know that most of you don't care about this, but I work in thesaurus construction, so uh ...mahalo. Not hatin' just sayin'
I should add that parkviewresident is right, it would be nice for people in the neighborhood to have some input into the way the development is going to look and how it's going to incorporate itself into the surrounding area. Much of the criticism I've seen, however, has been quickly anti, which doesn't seem particularly helpful.
Reid said:
"I understand DC's tax base needs to be expanded, but there are plenty of awful developments that can be razed and rebuilt that will produce that expansion without further destroying DC's open space."
I agree there are a lot of existing, low-density developments that coudl be razed and rebuilt to accomodate more residents, but if they have people living in them, that would be pretty insensitive to the occupants. At least building on vacant land wouldn't displace existing residents, and further the divisive gentrification battle. Regarding open space, besides Rock Creek Park and the Mall, there's Hain's Point, the Arboretum, Fort Totten Park, the C & O Canal/Potomac area, future Anacostia trail system, Meridian Hill Park, etc. The land in question is currently inaccessible, behind fences anyway, so maybe a small park or ballfield could be made available to the public as a concession by the developers?
Wouldn't more density in the city create less demand in the suburbs? Wouldn't that then decrease the incentive of the suburbs to themselves become more dense?
Sixty years ago, maybe, but not now. The DC burbs have their own job centers and their own growing pains. If DC broke one million residents tomorrow, Tysons would still be throwing up 300+ towers along the Metro route. And Tysons commuters won't, by and large, live in Petworth or Brookland, because it's ridiculously inconvenient.
Fairfax is going to become more dense, in other words, whether it likes it or not. But that doesn't mean that it isn't in the District's own best interest to try and increase its tax base. Which includes expanding the stock of available housing beyond renovated husks in Rosedale and luxury condos on Harvard Street.
Ryan, I agree with you, most of the criticism has been quick. Having watched the debate for the past few months, I fully support AFRH's efforts to use its assets (in this case, its land) to help provide a haven for our retired veterans. The development of unused land within the AFRH is a possible path for the home to maintain its financial solvency. But as a resident living near the home, if the home decides to develop large parcels of land, I would like to see the neighborhood bhe involved in the development process.
I feel the neighborhoods around the home are painted as “anti-development” and NIMBY’s, and I don’t think that’s the case. I feel the neighborhood wants the home to remain solvent; it wants to help the home remain a peaceful tranquil place for its retirees; and it wants to feel its involved in large development process. I don’t speak for my neighbors, but I feel my neighbors are for some level development, but they really looking for is more input. They want to feel that their concerns are heard. I feel the extreme points of view presented on both sides are due to a lack of communication between the home and its neighbors.
In my opinion - this seems like an excellent opportunity for both parties. The ARFH could generate much needed revenue by developing the southern and eastern corner of its land. And this would be a considerable revenue generator for the home – one parcel eyed for development on the southern and eastern corner of the land is 70+ acres. And the community could work with ARFH, developers, the city, and the National Park Service to open up some of the inaccessible land for public use. But, the first step is greater communication between neighbors.
Funny, I don't find Manhattanization a perjorative at all. It's rather cool, actually.
I'm looking at the SW border of the land in question (where the biggeset controversy is) and all I see are acres and acres of small homes. How could a 10 story building be built immediately across the street from these neighborhoods and not be hugely dispruptive to the nieghborhood feeling. I'm talking about all the homes along Park Place and Rock Creek Church.
There's no gradual build up if on one side of the street you have 3 story homes and on the other 10 story condos. That wouldn't be at all consistent with the succesful development of most of DC, where 10 story buildings are mostly only built around metro stops or along major corridors.
Reid said:
"I understand DC's tax base needs to be expanded, but there are plenty of awful developments that can be razed and rebuilt that will produce that expansion without further destroying DC's open space."
where have you been during the last two years while the baseball stadium war was taking place. thats exactly what the mayor's intention was to raze buildings to produce expansion and you see the hell he had to go through. thank goodness he prevailed ( I hope)
I think some of you are really jumping the gun on this one. Have you been to the Old Soldiers Home? Its like central park. Have you viewed this land from Park View (along Park Place) or Petworth (along Rock Creek Church Road). The WDC Parks Department has listed this area as "severly lacking public green-space". No one in these neighborhoods is anti-development, they want smart development. Tim Cox is deceiving you when he says people want him to give away land for a park. No, they want him to invite the proper officials from DC govt and planning to the table so they can carve out a chunk and BUY IT for a park.
Most importantly, the soldiers who live at the home are mostly AGAINST his plan. They believe the DOD is trying to create a situation that makes it necessary to close the home forever. Look at it this way, Mr Cox admits that in the next 30 years a record number of vets are going to need the home, but if he sells the land, or leases (which leases would be for 60-90 years) then the soldiers who retire in 30 years are f*'d, no more land for these greater number of soldiers to go to. Think about it. The DOD has stopped managing this facility since 1996...it is a liability to them and they want it off of thier plate.
Oh yeay...and Tim Cox has refuse at 3 different meetings to reveal how much money the home needs to raise. They have 51 million in the bank now, thats 5 million MORE than 5 years ago. He is making straw man arguments that the main stream press are not looking into. The AFRH is a federal institution which means their books are to be open to the public, but he won't reveal the numbers! The soldiers at the home know its fishey, the people in the neighborhoods know its fishy but the press thinks everything is just peachy (surprise)
"Funny, I don't find Manhattanization a perjorative at all. It's rather cool, actually."
For large significan parks NYC (where I am a native) has Battery Park, Prospect Park, Central Park, Washington Park, Hillside, ...I'm already way, way past the acrage that DC has. All DC has is Rock Creek Park, and thats smaller than any one of the parks listed above. If DC ever hopes to be half the city manhattan is, then people better fight for most park space in areas that need it.
All DC has is Rock Creek Park, and thats smaller than any one of the parks listed above.
RCP is significantly larger than all of the parks you mentioned--and probably larger than all of them put together. Most of it is inaccessible to public transportation, but there you go.
Thanks, vor. Plus, I find it very amusing that people living in nice low density areas demand that open land around them first be made into nice parks (for them) before they are willing to discuss tall buildings.
Of course, I'm sure they are being sincere and will agree to some of the low density areas they are in being converted to high density, once they get the parks. Really. Yeah. Anytime now.
Mike, what exactly do you think Rock Park is? It's got 1,755 acres, which is much larger than those NYC parks you claim are smaller. Central Park is 843 acres; Prospect Park, 526 acres; Battery Park, only 21 acres. Washington and Hillside don't seem to be even worth bringing up, at 2 and 0.5 acres. So no, they aren't, even combined, "way, way past the acrage that DC has".
And of course Rock Creek Park is not the only park DC has. There are plenty of city parks and national parks around that are larger than some of the parks you mention.
Yes, yes, we know DC is so horrendously inferior to NYC that you sully yourself by even reading this site, but Rock Creek really is a big park.
I posted a comment with the sizes of the parks Mike mentioned, but it's been held up, presumably because it has multiple links. Anyway, vor is correct that Rock Creek Park (1,755 acres) is bigger than all the parks Mike mentioned combined, and it's far from being DC's only park.
Timothy Cox indeeds create caricatures, straw men to be ridiculed without responding to some legitimate, serious questions that come from the neighbors of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, aka the Soldiers Home.
By the way, our informal group is a racially mixed group of residents that includes some who've been living here for decades (such as my fellow ANC Commissioners, Ron Bland, age 72, and Timothy Jones and Joey Henson, Deidre Saunders, a longtime resident of Petworth) and people relatively new to Petworth.
By the way, since when do we adhere to rules that newcomers to any place have no right to an opinion? Sounds like the thinking of my rigid New England relatives of other generations who believed if you were not born in our town, you were and always would be an "outsider." How often I heard previous generations condemn people who moved in "who don't belong here and have no right to be here." Enough with those stifling, Old World attitudes, please.
There's nothing wrong with asking that the development be planned in way that allows for park space that WAS accessible to be made accessible again.
I am one of the people in the neighborhood group to which Mr. Cox referred. Contrary to his opinions, we're not opposing development. It's simple to assert that charge, and it's wrong.
Deflecting scrutiny does not guarantee that the AFRH will meet its financial goals. Asking for transparency in the development plans of a federal institution is not asking for too much.
Vor and KCinDC, I get your point. RCP is a great park, but all the parks I listed are more useable and quite necessary to sustain a city like NY. Chicago is another great example of a city with neighborhoods and great, accessible parks. Petworth and Park View are lacking that space. The 1902 McMillan plan specifically stated that park View and Petworth did not need to create parks because the Old Soldiers Home was open to the public. It wasn't until after the riots that they closed it off entirely. None of the residents are anti-development, they just want some of the elements that most all big cities deem important to sustain a liveable environment.
That's great Mike...and just as soon we see folks stop NIMBYing density development, we'll be happy to talk parks. But forgive me if it seems a fig leaf in lieu of that. I have this funny feeling once they get their park, they;ll continue to NIMBY density.
while driving through that park view community i often thought wouldnt it be nice to have sheep and cows in those fields.
Same here Martine. It would be great to devote the smaller section of land to high density, and then plow under the low density community and open it up just such a purpose. Much more efficient, and would allow for such uses.
If you don't actually live in the directly surrounding neighborhoods, aren't you the NIMBY one? NIMBY is a term usually meaning a group that acknowledges the need for something, but just doesn't want it too close (i.e. jail, trash dump, etc.). Simply choosing parklands or low density over high density is not NIMBY, that's just a choice to shape the neighborhood around oneself. As long as that decision is not based upon racism, I think it's one of the cornerstones to a healthy community.
On the other hand, being for density, but forcing it down the throats of other neighborhoods seems to me to be the epitome of NIMBY.
NIMBY means "Not In My Back Yard", and we are not NIMBY's. We have tons of development going on. There will be 6 brand new 8+ story buildings near the Petworth metro station but the neighborhood supported those projects. This is not about being anti-development. Mr Cox wants to develope 170 acres, and all the neighborhood wants him to do is carve out 25 acres for use by the Soldiers, developers, and residents for a park in an area where kids play in traffic triangles, which is not even legal but all the kids have. How is that being against development?
The National Capitol Planning Commission and DC Historic Reveiw Board are the only opinions right now that matter, and based on the meetings last month they agree with the residents of the neighborhood on this one, so people can say NIMBY all they want.
By the way, this is our FRONT yard, so we have every right to fight for our community needs.
Mike --
If the grounds of the home are "like central park" then why can't anyone except for the residents use them? Sorry, but that argument is bs.
As planned in the 19th century, the open space at the home *was* originally supposed to be a park. That plan was quickly put in the toilet when the property was surrounded by 10-foot fences topped with barbed wire.
I'd be all for having a park there if DoD actually let one exist. As it is, selling off or leasing the land is the only way anybody except for military retirees is going to get access to that property.
-- Pkr
DC is "your community". Hosing down the entire city because you don't like big buildings, and want your upscale yuppieland pristine isn't an argument.
Oh, I didn't realize that the only community I live in is the entirety of the District. Guess there's no point to ANCs or wards for that matter.
That line of argument is completely insane. The best way to improve a city is to encourage community involvement on the local level. Taking away control of a neighborhood from the people that actually have to live with those changes is a great recipe for creating empty soulless neighborhoods.
I don't even live anywhere near this land, and I don't really care how it turns out. I just think it sets a bad precedent for other neighborhoods that a community's desire to control the growth is swatted away as some yuppie daydream. That's a preposterous, shortsighted, and vindictive attitude, which would only lead our city into a race to the bottom.
John, I'm confused....Did you just call Petworth and Park View "upscale yuppieland?"
Someone correct me if I'm out of date, but last I heard, one of the restrictions on this development is that the historic fence surrounding the property (despite its ugliness) will need to remain intact. Therefore, all new developments will have streets that have to be entered through the main entrance of the Soldiers Home. I think this is crazy. The plans I saw last year didn't make good urban planning sense and will really muck up traffic on Rock Creek Church Road.
And, while I live in the neighborhood, I admit I haven't been involved in any of this process. But I would like to add that from what I can tell based on listservs and personal experience, the folks at the Soldiers Home don't care what the neighbors think. They won't even let regular citizens see Lincoln's historic summer home.
I'd argue the reverse, leaving control to a "neighborhhod" is insane. This produces the standard we already see, where every NIMBYs, and tries to shove development on the next place. Nothing evr gets done.
Moreover, it presumes that the only people witha voice are those who managed to get in before the real estate boom, and that they can happily slam the door behind them. Renters, or anyone else who wants a shot. Piss off. Anyone who would like to try and get some business into the city and out of the sprawl. NIMBY!
It's what always drives these quaint "the neighborhood should decide" arguments. It really boils down to "Piss off...I got mine, you drop dead.".
"As planned in the 19th century, the open space at the home *was* originally supposed to be a park. That plan was quickly put in the toilet when the property was surrounded by 10-foot fences topped with barbed wire."
You are confused and need to look at the history. THAT LAND WAS OPEN TO RESIDENTS OF PARK VIEW AND PETWORTH UNTIL 1968. Little my little the AFRH closed it off, and finally after the riots they closed it for good. When these neighborhoods were built in 1916 that land was considered thier greenspace so parks were not created in that area. Read the 1902 McMillian plan, which is still in effect today....
The AFRH isn't a rundown vacant lot. Just as much as some of you are criticizing those that want to restrict development for what you perceive to be yuppie greed (trust me, the neighborhood surrounding the Home is anything but yuppie), lusting after the land of others seems pretty greedy too.
For over 150 years that land has been home to retired veterans. Today nearly 1400 live there. Land leasing and development is not the only acknowledged way for the Home to raise funds. It simply seems to be the most enticing and controversial method at the moment.
"I'd be all for having a park there if DoD actually let one exist. As it is, selling off or leasing the land is the only way anybody except for military retirees is going to get access to that property."
Why not sell it to the DC Parks Department? The AFRH won't even sit down with them to discuss it. This is federal property which means it is owned by the people of the United States. DoD just manages it for them. They want to get rid of it, so neighbors are saying get the right players on your committees, instead of only developers. AFRH has 51 million in the bank right now. They made 5 million more last year than the year before. So far, they have not proven the need for the cash, but have been requested to do so by the NCPC...well see what thye come up with
John what makes you think you'll be any better off with an apartment complex there? What are the chances it will be any more affordable than the hundreds of others scattered about the city? It would not make a difference in your quest to "get yours".
But hey, you know what. I really really want to live in Georgetown. But those damn yuppies want to take land on the waterfront and make it a park. EFF THAT! I demand high rise apartments! I must be able to live in whatever neighborhood I want at whatever price I can pay, in whatever style of residence I see fit despite the historic character of the place! Because damn it, those bastards "got theirs" before the boom!
But I would like to add that from what I can tell based on listservs and personal experience, the folks at the Soldiers Home don't care what the neighbors think. They won't even let regular citizens see Lincoln's historic summer home.
This is straight-up wrong. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is
currently preserving and developing Lincoln Cottage
and the National Monument to open it to the public in
a couple years. See the information for yourself:
www.lincolncottage.org.
Your example is precisely right Reid. Why should G-town be excluded from this? Obviouly there is a certain level of historical landmark protection there, but that's about it.
In gfact, amusingly you make another point. Your precious "let my hood decide!" plainive cry creates the fun "trickle down" phenomenon. G-Town doesn't want their lifestyle impaired in any way, and they have lots of money. So Development gets shoved off down the money food chain. You get pressure because no one wants to bug the people above you in the income food chain, so you react by shoving it further down.
This phenomenon is better known as "gentrification".
1) Perhaps AFRH has $51 million in the bank. Perhaps that doesn't come close to what they need to take care of the bills, medical and otherwise, for 1400 aging veterans for decades.
2) It's clear from the plans that AFRH is not just paving over the whole campus. There will be a lot of green space left. Lots.
3) AFRH doesn't owe nearby residents a park. It's not clear to me why residents should be able to cost the city an increase in its tax base, reduce the ability of AFRH to pay its bills, and veto the ability of AFRH to determine how it wants to use its land.
4) Reid, before you say one more thing about fitting development into the historic character of the neighborhoods, please go stand at the corner of Irving and Park Place and tell me what beautiful urban planning scheme these new buildings will be disrupting. Walk up Park Place and then across Irving to North Capitol and tell me what wonderful, interconnected theme will be harmed by the construction of these buildings, whose design we have yet to see. Good gravy.
Oh, BTW. The "historic nature" of every DC neighborhood was Native American land stolen from them. After that it was mostly uninhabited swamp. In much of near NW, it was primarilly African American. Should we legalize "Afican American" only neighborhood sales covenants, "to keep historic flavor"?
Or are you just yanking a buzzword out of your posterior to rationalize "I got mine, go piss off"?
Yeah, that's what i thought.
John:
First of all, I didn't "get mine." I'm a renter too. I don't love the high price of real estate either. But I recognize that you can't tear everything down to your level of affordability just because you want it that way. And I specifically said that neighborhoods restrictions based upon racism are not acceptable. I'm talking purely on a architectural and density issue. I don't know where all your bitterness is from, but something tells me you aren't one more apartment building in DC away from homeownership anyway.
Ryan,
From what people are saying, the finances are a question. It's a government entity, how it chooses to finance itself IS a public question.
You're right, the plans are not clear, but once it's been zoned for 10 story buildings, I'll give you one guess how tall the buildings will be.
And you're also right that I'm not familiar with the area. But it's not my neighborhood. I'm just defending a neighborhood's efforts to control overly rapid development.
And no the city doesn't owe them a park. Nor does it really owe them a functioning metro system. Or playgrounds. Or functioning libraries. Or any service beyond the bare minimum. But that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to do it anyway. Expanding the tax base should not be a singular pursuit. The tax base is expanding all over the place (Columbia Hospital, whatever becomes of Walter Reed, whatever becomes of the Old Convention Center). I just think that a historic park should have to pass a higher threshold before part of it becomes a 10 story apartment.
And, I may be wrong, but that property isn't owned by AFRH, it's owned ultimately by the government. So any libertarian principals of private land ownership and use are pretty moot.
DCist Ryan, responding to your 1,2,3, and 4 in order:
1.)We and the soldiers living at the home have a right to require them to open the books to the public. How can we possibly decide how much money they need to raise if they don't.
2.)Yes, but whats not paved is not open to the public except the 50 foot bike path they have said they will put in. Additionally, if you READ THE Master Plan, it will be a gated community complete with guards, so all the existing community gets is more conjestion and pollution. Any good planner would REQUIRE park space and REQUIRE DC Parks dept input, but this is federal so its a little different.
3.) No one OWES anyone anything. No one is asking for them to GIVE anything away. We are talking about 25 acres of 177 that could be paid for or traded via federal land swaps,etc.
4.)How 'bout walking down Rock Creek Church Road, then heading south on Park Place NW. If that is not some of the most beautiful land in DC then I must be crazy. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder I'd be willing to bet that people find it stunning...yes stunning.
Reid,
Actually, you would be surprised. Much of my annoyance doesn't come from my present income situation, which is quite good actually, but not forgetting where I come from. I quite dislike my own breed of upscale types who chose to forget.
My apologies for assuming your status.
But its more than that. I will bet big money that the same people whining about "too rapid development" also are concerned with global warming, don't like the car culture, etc... Well kids, you don't get something for nothing. When you NIMBY development, or cry over density...you create the problem. You either build up...or build out. There is no NIMBY third option. And building out has resulted in all the problems we have today.
Like it or not, we have Manhattan levels of population and economic growth...so we either start actling like an actual city, or we sprawl to West Va.
John;
You mean to tell me that you don't think there are other places in DC to build up? You've got to be kiddiing! Northeast has plenty of space, what about Walter Reed, thats going to be available. There a few abandon schools in Northwest that could be raised for new buildings. I can show you TONS of abandon housing in almost any DC neighborhood. We're not so pressed for space that we should get rid of every greenspace and park that John can't afford to buy a house on.
Cliff,
In other words, NIMBY!!! Of course, all of those other locations won't have an equal NIMBY movement in their area, will they? Nope, no siree.
I agree...and all of those locations and more will be required for development. Or you'll have more sprawl...and trash perfectly good farmland and scenic views elsewhere. Again, you can't have Manhattan like levels of population and economic growth, while pretending you can have a city based on 1970's levels of both. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Are Vincent Orange (Ward 5) or Adrian Fenty (Ward 4) getting involved in the same manner as Jim Graham? The land in question is in Ward 5, yet none of the articles/op-eds/postings take that into consideration. Perhaps b/c both Orange and Fenty are running for Mayor, they don't want to piss off the developers? (I've not seen the plans, but god forbid it ends being anything like the Home Depot/Giant mess for which Orange continuously pats himself on the back) What about the ANC Commissioners from all of the surrounding neighborhoods in Wards 1, 4, and 5? Does anyone know if this has come up in an ANC-5C monthly meeting recently? (Note: I don't believe there is currently an ANC Commissioner for SMD-5C11, which contains the bulk of the AFRH land)
Something seems fishy about the appparent lack of community involvement (whether for or against) in the immediate neighborhoods apart from Park View and Petworth. It's not even showing up on the listservs. I'm not sure what the "Ward 5 Constituent Summit" will really entail this weekend (see Upcoming.org for March 11), but it's just steps away from the disputed development, and probably a good place to "air" your opinion to someone in the local government.
Mike Said:
You are confused and need to look at the history. THAT LAND WAS OPEN TO RESIDENTS OF PARK VIEW AND PETWORTH UNTIL 1968. Little my little the AFRH closed it off, and finally after the riots they closed it for good.
So what am I confused about? The "park" has been closed for nearly 40 years, and you want to argue that it's like "central park"? You're the one who is either confused or deluded about the definition of a "public park."
Face it, it's never going to be a public park again, regardless of how many dusty laws you dig up and try to throw in the face of DoD. It can either stay the way it is -- fenced off fields in the middle of an urban neighborhood -- or it's going to get developed.
-- pkr
jaime...the AFRH encompasses 375 acres, it is a part of Ward 5, Ward 1, and Ward 4. The most effected areas are 1 and 4,acerage wise. But development wise that tallest buildings are proposed around ward 5. there is opposition from that area but there aren't a lot of houses located right adjacent to it. Graham and Fenty have been extremely supportive of the neighborhood, Orange - I don't think he even knows about it and the ward 5 people of our group are pretty upset about it. SHould be an interesting meeting.
Park-er...when I compared it to central park, I was talking about the beauty of the landscape and meadows, not accessibility. But the fact that the neighborhoods were developed while people did have access to it is an important point to remember, I think.
Park-er: Why can't this land be turned into a park? It's not privately owned and if enough people demand it, it can become a park. There's no inevitability of it becoming a strip mall.
John: Once again you're treating all potential land development sites as equal. They're not. Some would be better for dense development, some would not. I happen to believe that we should be using up all concrete wastelands before we start using up more parkland. (and honestly, who was making these same arguments when Congress floated the idea of turning Roosevelt Island into a development? That's in nobody's back yard, and yet there was public outcry. The only difference I see is that there's no public access to the AFRH land, which can be changed with enough public pressure.)
And additionally, you seem to draw a direct correlation between suburban sprawl and urban density. Before you do that again, please point to a study that shows a direct causation effect between the two.
I don't believe that sprawl out to the outer counties has anything to do with how dense some downtown neighborhoods are. The people living out there want to live in homes, and will move far away to do so. Additionally, they're economies are probably more tied to other economic centers (Reston, Tysons, Rockville, etc.). Finally, there are other more productive ways to improve the environmental effects of sprawl that don't include destroying natural land. First on that list would be increased commuter rail.
Sorry, "their economies". I hate when I make that mistake.
Mike, what part of the AFRH is physically in Wards 1 & 4? I'm looking at this map (it's a PDF and takes a bit to load), and it looks likes it's all in Ward 5. That doesn't discount the fact that residents in Wards 1 and 4 will be greatly affected, I just want to be clear I'm looking at the correct parcel of land. Also, what is your group? Have you considered posting on the Ward 5 listservs (there's a fairly extensive list in the sidebar of my blog) to get more folks in Ward 5 involved, particularly with the "Summit" this weekend? As we've both alluded, Orange isn't going to rally the troops, and from what I can tell, I don't think the ANCs are, either.
jaime...the AFRH is federal property. It does not fall in any ward. In fact, it even has its own zip codes. The area all along Rock Creek Church Road joins into Ward 5, and the area all along Park Place joins into ward 1.
The Old Soldiers Home does not belong to a ward. As a federal institution they have thier own police, postal service, and even elect a representative that represents the Home like a mayor or something. Its weird. I'll never understand the federal/local jurisdiction thing in DC. If they carve up the area around park place it will probably go to ward 1 or 4.
Interestingly enough, the DC Council considers the AFRH's 272 acres "located in Ward 5" (see page 3), so I doubt the land would go to any other Ward if "carved up."
But really, my whole point was about engaging all of the affected neighbors. This article also addresses that involvement.
Apologies, the link for the DC North article disappeared...Try the old cut-n-paste: http://www.capitalcommunitynews.com/publications/dcnorth/2005-dec/html/SolidersHome.cfm.
How is the potential development of the Old Soldiers Home being planned in relation to what is happening on the McMillan Sand Filtration site 1 mile to the south? The McMillan site is also sizable, and one would hope that the future of both areas are mutually considered in relation to one another in some larger master plan.
Mateo raises a great point -- the sand filtration site was transferred to District ownership in the 90's and look how well the city has made use of it. It's sitting there, rotting, and surrounded by a hideous chain link fence.
I have nothing against parks...I have everything against the neglect and abandonment with which DC treats its open spaces. At least if the land gets developed, someone will actually care for it.
FYI--The Rock Creek Park is, in fact, the largest urban-contained park in the United States.
this property is within an ANC district and there happens to be an ANC member who live on this site(old soldiers home). do you not think voters live there?
@ martine vose: I'm curious about this, too. According to the Ward 5 map (linked in my first comment above), The property is in ANC-5C, SMD-11, I'm not sure if William Jentarra is still the Commissioner (according to Wikipedia, the seat is vacant for 2005-2006). It'll be interesting to look into this weekend.