Two weeks ago, we took a look at the developing discussion over the fate of proposed development on the campus of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (which we'll refer to as the Home, or AFRH). The post prompted a long discussion and a stream of emails, so today we revisit the subject.

The campus site currently consists of about 270 acres, most of which is open space (though closed to the public) but which does contain about 100 different structures, located mainly in the northeast part of the property. The campus has Irving Street and the Washington Hospital Center to its south, North Capitol Street and Catholic University to its east, and the neighborhoods of Park View and Petworth to its west and north. According to the Master Plan for the site, planned development will occur in a number of zones -- pockets spread around the periphery of the campus -- over the course of 15 to 25 years. The nature of the development in each zone will vary widely.

Zones 1 and 2, along the far north and northeast edges of the property will be used primarily by the AFRH. Zones 3 and 4, on the eastern side of the property against North Capitol and south to Irving Street, will contain the largest and most dense development, including office and research facilities, some medical structures, retail, and a hotel. Zones 5 and 6 are in the southwest and west portions of the property and will mainly be residential areas with some small retail. Most of the property, the vast center swath, will remain unchanged. It will continue to be open space, behind a fence, available only to those associated with the Home.

Size is an Issue:
Criticism of the plan falls into several categories. There are many that fault the size and scope of the development plan, particularly the heights of the buildings and they way in which they'll blend into the surrounding landscape. Looking at the development plans, it appears that the largest buildings, those which will approach 130 feet (or about ten stories) tall, will be located in Zones 3 and 4. These areas abut existing buildings on the property with large profiles, Catholic University (including the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception), and the Washington Hospital Center, to the south. Those structures vary from 19th Century brick colonial style to stone Gothic structures on the Catholic campus, to concrete modern monoliths at the Hospital Center across the street (new, glass-panelled buildings are currently under construction there, as well). It remains to be seen what type of buildings will be designed for Zones 3 and 4, but it's hard to say they could conflict with the size and style of surrounding areas.

Size concerns on the west side of the property are more serious. There, two and three story rowhouses stretch the length of the property, up Park Place and Rock Creek Church Road. While development in Zones 5 and 6 will be mainly residential, some alternatives in the plan call for buildings up to 80 feet tall in those areas, with the stipulations that designs for the buildings fit the character of the neighborhoods and taller structures be built with larger set-backs from the road, so the rooflines are not overly discontinuous. Most versions of the plan call for four to six story homes, and a source at the Home notes that estimates for development in the Master Plan should be considered maxima; in no case will development ever be larger or higher than that stipulated in the Plan.

Open Space:
According to our source at the Home, open space currently makes up about 97 percent of the AFRH campus. After planned development, open space would make up about 85 percent of the grounds (though the vast majority of that space would be behind fences, unusable by anyone not affiliated with the Home). It does appear that the Master Plan sets aside at least 20 to 30 acres for open space, bike and pedestrian trails, and "pocket parks." Open space can mean quite a lot, however, and residents of nearby neighborhoods are anxious to see something more.

Specifically, residents would like to see Zone 5, in the southwest corner of the property, turned into a public park, with about 25 to 30 acres of contiguous open space. A resident we spoke to noted that at the time Petworth and Park View were designed, the Home's property was open to the public, and so it was felt that no additional, large scale parks were needed between Rock Creek Park and the AFRH property. When the Home then gated its open space, a large number of residences were left without easy access to significant green space. Some advocates for development have suggested turning the McMillan Reservoir property, a large undeveloped area of formerly Federal land south of the Washington Hospital Center, into such a park, but our source noted that that space was not within easy walking distance for many neighborhood children.

It's not immediately clear why so much of the Home's open space will remain off limits. The Home itself does maintain, however, that they need to use their land resources for income, and they should not have to use Zone 5 for parkland while such a need exists and when alternatives are nearby.

The Money Question:
The existence and extent of the Home's financial difficulties are a significant underlying issue surrounding the development debate. According to our source at the Home, the AFRH Trust Fund was spent down some 40% before the current Chief Operating Officer, Timothy Cox, took over, largely to address necessary capital improvements on the property. Fulltime staff has also been reduced some 40 percent in the past four years in an attempt to address cost concerns.

It appears based on numbers we've received that the Home operates on around $60 milion to $70 million a year. Of this, about $13 million per year comes from resident fees, about $7 million a year is generated by payroll deductions from active duty personnel, and about $6 million comes from interest on investments (limited to U.S. Treasury Notes, by law). The remaining costs have lately been covered by one-off windfalls, such as a property sale to Catholic University and something our source calls "military fines and forfeitures," which last year gave the Home around $45 million with which to plug gaps. The Home is understandably anxious to secure a more ready source of income

Claims of financial hardship are greeted with some skepticism by neighborhood opponents who note, accurately, that the Home has not gone out of its way to release financial information. Our source at the Home does note, however, that the AFRH is preparing a comprehensive financial document for the National Capital Planning Commission, which may serve to defuse arguments about these issues.

What About the Soldiers?:
One point that continues to arise in these discussions, but which all participants have been unable, so far, to document, is the feelings of Home residents on the project at hand. AFRH notes that more than half of these residents are over 80 years old, many have little or no family, and most have little to no money of their own. According to a neighbor who spoke to us, these soldiers largely oppose the plan, but are unable to publicly say so, out of fear that they'll be asked to leave AFRH. Despite this, the neighbor reports that perhaps 400 soldiers have signed a petition asking the Home to raise the payroll deduction of active duty troops for financial support, instead of developing the land. The neighbor also notes that availability of land for future soldiers is a concern (but perhaps not a justified one; as mentioned before, better than half the property will remain as open space under the control of the AFRH). It also seems there is a fear that this development is intended to set the stage for the ultimate closure of the entire Home. We cannot confirm these statements.

The Status of Debate:
A number of parties across the city have weighed in, and it seems that the public outcry has resonated, at least a little, in the halls of the AFRH. District Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has encouraged the D.C. Council to take a larger role in the planning for the campus, and some members have responded. Councilmember Jim Graham has spoken positively about the development but has voiced his concerns about the way in which area residents have been excluded from discussion of the project. He has asked to be included as a consulting party on certain matters pertaining to the site. Adrian Fenty has placed himself on the record as firmly opposed to the development, repeatedly citing the 1902 McMillan Plan, which calls for an "emerald necklace" of green between Rock Creek Park and the Home's campus. His statements appear, however, to disregard recent development in the area, most notably that associated with Catholic University and the Washington Hospital Center. Vincent Orange is a strong supporter of the plan.

In transcripts of community hearings regarding the project, a number of complaints are registered, but the most consistent is a feeling that the neighborhoods have been left out of the planning process. Questions are repeatedly raised about which ANC members are chosen to consult on the plan and why, and many residents simply cannot understand why the structure of the plan was never presented to the public while it was being put together, leaving residents with no choice but to support or fight the plan, rather than influence it. There is, unquestionably, some residential support for development, but one gets the impression that the AFRH could have saved itself considerable difficulty with increased public input on its plans.

AFRH has stated that they would like to break ground on portions of the project in 2007, but it's unclear to what extent public pressure might delay their timetable. At the moment, the AFRH is seeking approval from the National Capital Planning Commission. We'll continue to follow this story as it develops.

Pictures are of the western and southwestern edge of the AFRH property. Video is of the southwestern corner of the AFRH property. All pictures and video taken by Ryan Avent.