October 10, 2006
Tear It Down?
Yesterday, the Post declared support for 1960s-style urbanism dead. No longer, they say, are we to be held hostage by soaring freeways, concrete office blocks, and the utter deadness of the streets and neighborhoods ushered in by the age of the car. Finally, we've learned how vital it is to encourage pedestrian traffic and to take advantage of our waterfront resources; We understand that you cannot design cities around automobile use.
Except where the Whitehurst Freeway is concerned. Along the Georgetown waterfront another relic sits impervious to new, and better, ideas about urban planning. The city is unable to take full advantage of one of its most appealing stretches of riverside land, because we really, really like being able to use the piece of road. Really.
Last year, The District Department of Transportation began reexamining the helpfulness of the elevated roadway in a study on how to improve the way traffic moves from downtown to the Key Bridge, and back. Of 14 potential solutions published in November of 2005, DDOT has now chosen five options to present in public meetings, all of which include the deconstruction of the road. Reception to their conclusions has been, as you might expect, chilly (see the Georgetown Current, for a second take on the public forum). Overwhelmingly, residents are concerned about the additional traffic burden on M Street, and possibly on a new and gussied up K Street (which, if the freeway were torn down, would have to be widened to help handle the additional traffic). A web site has even appeared listing the reasons the Whitehurst should be saved.
We've often argued that getting rid of the Whitehurst Freeway should be approached carefully. It may only handle some 43,000 cars a day, but those are 43,000 less cars that have to drive through the already congested Georgetown. Fine, planners say, we'll just widen K Street and make it accessible from the Key Bridge. That's all fine and good, though the idea of expanding K Street to handle increased traffic seems to fly in the face of plans to make the waterfront an idyllic destination for residents and tourists alike. Who would really want to take a picnic to a stretch of grass sandwiched between six lanes of traffic and the Potomac River? Love it or hate it, the Whitehurst has one thing going for it – traffic on K Street is now relatively light, and once the renovations are completed, the waterfront will truly become an attractive and relaxing alternative to the hustle and bustle of M Street.
But if city planners really are dead-set on knocking the freeway down, why not think a little more radically? After all, getting rid of Whitehurst offers the District a golden chance to remake the area once and for all. The problem is not the existence or absence of the Whitehurst Freeway. The problem is the decision to route any significant amount of automobile traffic through Georgetown -- a thriving, pedestrian-oriented commercial and historic district. Traffic on M Street already takes away from the experience of living, working, or shopping in the area; that problem will exist with or without the Freeway, unless a dramatic reimagining of the neighborhood is undertaken.
In addition to eliminating the Whitehurst, the District should not allow direct access to M Street from the Key Bridge, should reduce M to one lane in either direction, and should increase the size of the sidewalks. Key Bridge traffic should be oriented to the Northwest, away from downtown. In short, the Key Bridge should not be considered a viable alternative for getting into the city.
Instead, any plan to eliminate the Whitehurst ought to also take into consideration plans for constructing an additional Metro water crossing and a Georgetown station. In that way, the city could improve Georgetown's walkability and open up the waterfront while significantly increasing Metro's ability to carry riders from Virginia to the city. And while it might seem farfetched, the city ought to turn to Virginia for assistance with the funding. By increasing Metro's cross-Potomac capacity, WMATA would be significantly increasing the value of Metro-accessible land in the Commonwealth.
A bold plan, to be sure. But if the planners of fifty years ago were bold enough to raze buildings by the thousands, the better to scar the city with asphalt and concrete, then maybe we can muster the will to try and undo their mess.
Martin Austermuhle contributed to this post. Former DCist editor Ryan Avent contributes from London.
Photo taken by Speedy Delivery.
|
something tells me VA wont go for it. and also, why would people want to picnic under a huge metro bridge?
this is a good idea, and i'm always all for more metro. while i also think its probably not going to be picked up, are you going to actuallyt ake this to the public meetings? are they already done with submissions? Also, where can we see the 5 options?
I am firmly against tearing down the Whitehurst. While I think the traffic ramifications would not be as dire as some suggest, it would be a mistake for other reasons:
1: If the Whitehurst is bad because it is an eyesore, then building a ramp from the Key Bridge to K St. (as is the most likely scenario) is much worse. At least the current Whitehurst is way above K St. and does not block any pedestrian or automobile traffic on the street.
2: The Whitehurst does not prevent the development of the waterfront. Unlike most elevated highways, the Whitehurst has a perfectly pedestrian-friendly belly. If people aren't making their way to the waterfront it's because there's a parking lot in the way and there's nothing to do at the waterfront once you get there.
3. K st. is much better as it is. There is plenty of pedestrian activity beneath the freeway. As more venues open up along K St. it will get even better.
There's a good discussion of this over at Richard Layman's site, but basically this is a solution in search of a problem.
Dig! Dig! Dig!
While certainly Metro across the Key Bridge would work (checkout the Longfellow Bridge in Boston). Virginia rejected that plan back in the early Metro planning period, and I don't see why they would be willing to spend money on a change now since this is exclusively within the District and the VA Transportation Budget is already stretched thin (thank you idiot Republican State House Members). Tearing down the Whitehurst will be a complete disaster for DC's already overcrowded bridges and roads - and nobody seems to recognize the shortsidedness of this foolhardy plan.
The short, or long tunnel, in conjunction with traffic signals would be feasible, and would easily make up for the loss of the elevated freeway.
If you look at the aerial view of the Whitehurst (check Google Maps, etc.), you can see the existing ramps could plunge slightly below K street and emerge before 26th street. Chicago has a below-grade bypass along the river downtown, and from street level, you'd be hard pressed to notice the traffic just a few feet below.
The city study found that a tunnel would actually shorten commute time for some routes.
So a bunch of millionaire pinks move into condos and discover that there's a freeway in their backyard and want it torn down. This is only slightly less retarded than the morons who move into lofts on 17th Street and discover a bunch of nightclubs in their backyard that make noise.
Nobody gave a fat rat's poot about Whitehurst until people with money moved in and didn't like it disturbing their million-dollar view. DC is littered with halfassed highways that abruptly end nowhere near a major highway (northbound 95 at New York Avenue, southeast freeway at Barney Circle, and Whitehurst). Here's an idea: how about actually finishing what was started in the 1960s and MAKE THE ROADS GO SOMEPLACE, i.e., out of town as quickly as possible. Instead, DC is again putting all its eggs in the Metro basket and hoping this rapidly aging, decrepit system will save us from gridlock. And I don't see anybody ponying up the cash to put more pie-ine-the-sky Metro stations on every streetcorner. Hell, it's taken them this long to put on in Tysons, and they've been dragging ass on that for a decade.
Anything that gets slugburg commuters out of DC as fast as possible is something to be encouraged. Don't like the view, move elsewhere. Or gouge your eyeballs out with rusty carrot peelers.
like georgetown doesn't already have an overcrowding of popped collars. metro in the tools from arlington, and we'll be looking at a west side story homo-rumble.
My concern is less with any actual solution than with the inevitability that the District will mess up the implementation, creating a horrific half-finished traffic-filled zone that will linger for years without ever being completed. Even tiny projects in DC go on for years and are finished incredibly badly (the interminable repaving of F Street in Foggy Bottom being one expample), and I would hate to see one of Washington's few functional areas be destroyed once more by misguided improvements.
monkeyrotica: your ranting posts on various DC websites are growing tiresome. The quantity and tone of your comments would do Jonathan Rees proud! Are you seriously suggesting that the highway-building program of the 1960s be completed for DC? Exactly what neighborhoods do you want bulldozed so motorists can continue north on I-395? And how exactly is "decrepit" Metro "rapidly aging" any faster than the surface highway system? I say, tear the Whitehurst Freeway down.
The "if you don't like, move" argument always amuses me. It's not the most constructive way of tackling an issue.
What also cracks me up is when someone wants to put an evil face on an issue, they blame "the condo owners." Evidently, all things evil stem from people buying condos, or people who live in Dupont, Logan, Georgetown, or the suburbs. Anyone who falls into the above-mentioned categories deserve what karma brings them and should just shut up, according to some. Apparently, there is honor only in sharing a rented studio apartment in Shaw or Columbia Heights. But God FORBID someone tell them that they can't have a Whole Foods.
This is definitely a solution in search of a problem. The Whitehurst Caves are abuzz with activity at all hours of the day, so it's not like people are avoiding Georgetown because of the freeway. The only reason the waterfront is vacant is because of the ass-ugly fenced-in parking lot between K Street and the Potomac. Somehow I think there's a more efficient way of using that prime real estate.
Again and again, in Europe and some limited places in the US, reducing traffic lanes improves quality of life and actually increaese commercial business. It forces people to use and construct public transit. Public transit becomes exponentially (literally) more useful as the number of stations increases, and the revenue and profitability also increase. The Northern Blue Line Alternate that was proposed in 2001, combined with reduced traffic and more pedestrians would be a tremendous boon for the city and its residents.
The biggest problem that the whitehurst causes is that it really prevents K street from being connected to the rest of the city in the way that M and Penn do for M street. The other problem is that it really only meant to avoid the city. Using a more pedestrian-friendly design, with the refined K Street they have planned would boost the whole corridor, not just the spaces below. It would also be much more attractive, in spite of the cool shodow effects.
I don't buy the selfish G'town residents argument. The real argument should be over whether this is the best use of that riverfront space.
If the freeway is to be torn down, my biggest hope is that this will spur people to more greatly prioritize a closerlive/work proximity. As long term city and national planning policy, we should be reluctant to ecourage daily commuters to drive long distances.
Save Whitehurst! I concur with comments from those who note, correctly, that serious moves to tear down Whitehurst did not gain momentum until big money interests (Ritz Carleton, developers, deluxe condo owners, etc.) got involved, deciding that they could make a lot more money and drive up rents and housing values by tearing down Whitehurst and, oh yes, "beautifying" the waterfront. Well, keeping Whitehurst does not prevent beautification projects from moving ahead, or parks, or bike trails. How about that other so-called "beautification project" (a.k.a. Washington Harbour"). That's just another prime example of corporate interests winning out over common sense. I'm sorry that so many people see the Whitehurst as an eyesore. Probably not many of them are commuters. Many DC residents in Northwest regularly use the freeway to bypass the traffic message along M Street, Wisconsin Ave., and Key Bridge. Elevated highways are appreciated in many other cities for the convenience they provide. Maybe the Whitehurst isn't pretty, but so what? Just how many millions is the preferred Whitehurst "workaround" going to cost? The Georgetown powerbrokers seem to always miss the mark when it comes to traffic studies, so I don't believe for one moment their estimates of how little time difference (in driving time) there will be with any of the Whitehurst Freeway alternatives. Consider Georgetown's blunder years ago in opposing the contruction of a subway stop in Georgetown. Why? Fear over all of the "riff-raff" that the Metro might bring in. That was some brilliant city planning.
I'm as wary of the "new urbanism" as my parents were of "urban renewal." Both seem to be propagated by a bunch of ivory tower eggheads pitching what's best for us in a vacuum. In the latter, storing black people in highrises was a way of dealing with poverty. Check out the book American Project for a blueprint. In the former, blowing up roads is the answer to traffic problems and will bring about a magical Thornton Wilderesque Our Town in the heart of urban squalor.
Pedestrian-friendly is all well and good, but it's not a panacea. Check out what's left of the road in front of the White House. It's a nice walkspace, but closing it off was a slap in the face to home rule and turned the surrounding roads into a choked toiled at all hours. Nice as that pedestrian-centric mentality is, you still need roads to carry commerce. How do are those trucks supposed to deliver overpriced vegetables to Whole Foods? Anybody remember urbert Horatio Humphrey Memorial Plaza in front of MLK Library? Didn't think so. Who would want to remember a squalid cesspool of homeless urine and feces. But now that it's an open one-way, people can actually get to Gallery Place without holding their noses.
What I find particularly distasteful is the fact that all this postmodern estheticism seems to be based on a sort of indirect snob appeal, perpetuated by the trained seals of the tastemaking establishment. I don't think these people would have a problem with the Whitehurst Freeway if it was designed by Philipe Stark, built by Ikea out of recycled cruelty-free concrete, with a Starbucks every 50 feet.
To paraphrase Donne, no city is an island, but a part of the main. DC is as dependent on suburban commuters as they are on urban contracts. Considering that DC is on track to gain another 50k residents over the next decade at least, we should be talking about expanding road coverage, not closing it off. I doubt most of those will be taking the A2 bus downtown. They'll be driving busted 93 Toyotas.
Actually, the whole Georgetown resistance to a Metro stop is an urban legend. Check the orignal plans; I think the National Building Museum had them online for a time. There was never any plan to include Georgetown as a Metro stop.
I think the Whitehurst should stay, b/c it is so valuable and getting rid of it and compensating for it in another way is too costly and complex and may not even be implemented right.
But with this said, I see no reason why the waterfront can be developed better. Do away with the lots, make the area more aesthetically pleasing, fix up the waterfront and give it attractions. That's the best that can be done IMO realistically and it would still be better than what's there and be a moderate success.
W/ the whitehurst there, there's still improvement and potential for the G'town waterfront.
ME:
Recalling the Missing Persons song "Walking in LA" LA's got plenty of roads, and it still takes forever to get anywhere. Sure, the DC MSA growing at a rate of 50-60K residents each year, but most of those won't ever live or work in the relatively small proportion of the area that is DC, let alone the even smaller portion that is NW or downtown NW.
E St wasn't closed off in order to make it a pedestrian mall. It was closed because of security concerns. That brings me, by the way, to another reason I've heard to keep the Whitehurst- that it would measurably aid in the evacuation of DC.
"That brings me, by the way, to another reason I've heard to keep the Whitehurst- that it would measurably aid in the evacuation of DC."
I'm not sure I see how that is the case. The Whitehurst still dumps back on to Canal Road. It doesn't connect to a highway. All it connects is two local streets. It's can't get cars out any fast than those local streets can. In any evacuation, it would be just as jammed as every other street in the city.
Although I'm firmly against tearing down the Whitehurst, I disagree with any traffic argument for its preservation. Tearing it down is not getting rid of a road in hopes of achieving Thorton Wilderesque perfection (and really, Our Town is a lot more bleak than its frequent use as an analogy would have you believe). The Whitehurst would be replaced by a beefed up K St that would connect the exact same bottlenecks together that the Whitehurst does. In addition, by freeing up the movement of traffic between M St. and K st., the overall traffic flow of Georgetown would improve.
I'm against the tear down because I think the plans would diminish lower Georgetown (e.g., by increasing K St traffic and building an unsightly ramp from the Key Bridge down to K St.). There are a lot more worthy urban renewal disasters in this town that should be fixed before we consider the Whitehurst.
I have a question: Presently, the trailhead of the Capital Crescent Trail (nice bike path/multi-use trail running from Georgetown to Bethesda and beyond) sits at the western end of K Street... If the Whitehurst is removed, and a ramp or tunnel/ramp combo (or whatever) is built to replace it, what would happen to access to the Capital Crescent Trail?
If the freeway is to be torn down, my biggest hope is that this will spur people to more greatly prioritize a closerlive/work proximity.
That's a nice thought, but getting rid of the Whitehurst won't make people abandon Vienna and Great Falls in favor of Foggy Bottom. Tearing down the Whitehurst Freeway will cause more problems than it solves IMHO and it doesn't address the real problem with K St which is that there is HUGE PARKING LOT OCCUPYING WATERFRONT PROPERTY!!!!
wellhellothere,
I would think they'd just put jersey barriers at the end of K Street with a gap wide enough for a bike to go through. Kinda what happened to Royal Street in Old Town where it hits the Wilson Bridge. It's not like they can extend K Street anywhere.
Agree, Hill Rat, that the parking lot is the immediate thing preventing people from enjoying the waterfront. But we're not talking about the here and now, we're talking about the future, and the freeway is the single largest limitation of possible future uses.
I'm also not asking people to all at once abandon the burbs in favor of DC, I'm suggesting that the (in progress) changes in locations of population density and job density will make commuting into dc ever more unattractive for suburbanites. Taken as a whole, the inner suburbs already have the greatest numbers of both jobs and people. For many planning purposes (tax, env, etc), it makes sense to me that we'd want to discourage lengthy commutes, and enourage more people to live and work in close proximity. It also makes sense that we focus on maximizing our available assets, and the waterfront is a very significant asset.
It seems to me this should be the real question;
Is the greatest use of one of our premier assets to make things easier for people who choose to live in MD to work in DC?
Is the greatest use of one of our premier assets to make things easier for people who choose to live in MD to work in DC?
Mark - Good question! Ordinarily I happily engage in childish, recalcitrant, and (I like to think) humorus suburbanite bashing, but I don't think making commuting even more miserable than it already is (which is what will happen if you get rid of the Whitehurst) is the solution to sprawl.
IMHO you have to make living closer in a more attractive option. I live on the Hill in a 2BR condo and I'm happy with that; for me the tradeoff of not having to drive to work everyday, being able to walk to restaurants and shopping, and all the other elements of urban living make up for not having a 3000 sq ft house. But for someone who wants a driveway, yard, basement media room, etc. that simply won't work; their focus tends to be on what they have to give up by moving closer in, not what they gain by living in the city. If someone doesn't see the value in being in the city or inner suburbs, they will continue to commute.
"Is the greatest use of one of our premier assets to make things easier for people who choose to live in MD to work in DC?"
What is the premier asset? Georgetown? I don't see how the Whitehurst does anything to encumber that asset. If it's the waterfront that is the asset, I once again suggest you take a walk down to K st. and see how little of an affect the Whitehurst has on you and your enjoyment of the waterfront. Frankly I like the industrial feel that the road gives to that area. It gives it some character.
If the main reason to knock down the Whitehurst is to discourage long-range commuting, well that's not a good idea either. Commuting from the suburbs will not be materially affected by a whitehurst-less Georgetown. And if tearing down the Whitehurst is bad for DC, then I don't think we should do it purely on the speculation that it will make commutes longer.
Tearing down the Whitehurst (and god forbid, tunneling under K St.) will cost a lot of money. That money could be much better spent elsewhere to encourage more transit-use. I'd much rather keep the Whitehurst and get streetcars sooner (or even better, a new Rosslyn tunnel), than the opposite.
Reid:
In a former life, I kayaked from Jack's each week. I'm familiar with that section of K. Yes, the industrial feel does add something, but it's a matter of taste. I doubt many would recognize it as the best and highest use from financial, aesthetic, or environmental perspectives.
The main reason to knock it down shouldn't be to discourage commuting, there are better ones in the decision matrix, but you must recognize that facilitating/encouraging commuting is the main reason it was built and still stands...
Sure traffic in G’town (and probably West End and Dupont) would be worse, but traffic is pretty bad already. Too bad. In case you can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of cars. The comp plan points out that the single greatest downtown land use by percentage of total space is for roads. How is that a good thing for us, as residents?
I'm not usually an optimist when it comes to DC implementing grand plans, but it's clear to me that the waterfront could be soooo much more than it is.
Hill Rat: Compromise is a given, and some will do doubt choose to commute, but why should we subsidize their choice with our property, when it's not clear we have to or doing so is even a net benefit?
. . . some will do doubt choose to commute, but why should we subsidize their choice with our property, when it's not clear we have to or doing so is even a net benefit?
If the Whitehurst were only used by commuters then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but I've taken the Whitehurst countless times to avoid the traffic on M St. and I'm sure other DC residents use the Whitehurst as well. And while we're not sure that having the Whitehurst is a benefit, we're also not sure that tearing down the Whitehurst will provide us, as DC residents, some benefit.
If that horrible K St. parking lot were to go away and development couldn't proceed because of the Whitehurst, I might be right there with you. But the more likely scenario is that a developer seeking maximum return on their investment wants the Whitehurst gone because that significantly increases the value of whatever ends up in that spot.
I just don't think that getting rid of the Whitehurst is the long pole in the tent of increasing transit use in the G'town area.
HR wrote:
"the more likely scenario is that a developer seeking maximum return on their investment wants the Whitehurst gone because that significantly increases the value of whatever ends up in that spot."
No argument from me on that. But why would increased waterfront land/property values necessarily be a bad thing? At the very least, that's more tax receipts coming in and, after whatever to be built is built, probably less infrastructure maintenance funds going out.
Also, if some of that area does end up as unbuilt parkland, that parkland might have the opportunity to be more attractive, and therefore a greater "soft" benefit.
I'll say one thing about the Whitehurst- it does provide good sun and rain protection.
No argument from me on that. But why would increased waterfront land/property values necessarily be a bad thing? At the very least, that's more tax receipts coming in and, after whatever to be built is built, probably less infrastructure maintenance funds going out.
I hadn't considered the lower infrastructure maintenance costs, but tearing down an elevated freeway is sure to be an expensive proposition, how long do you think it will take the city to recoup its losses?
I think my issue with the increased property values is that the vast majority of the financial benefit will be going to individuals not to the city as a whole. This strikes me as another case where the city invests in infrastructure/planning for the chimera of increased tax revenue.
I think a lot of people don't like the Whitehurst because they never really use it and they've never seen how it helps you get from one area of the city to others easily and quickly, avoiding gridlock in Georgetown.
I go to the waterfront often in summer and I've noticed plenty of people down there. As some here say, why not first get rid of that ugly parking lot and then see how much nicer the space is?
"the whole Georgetown resistance to a Metro stop is an urban legend"
Then why do so many people who live here at the time remember the "strong resistance" that was put up against Metro by Georgetown residents. I've heard a lot of people say that the Metro was never in the plans and I've even heard one Georgetown resident say that the real reason there's no Metro there is because the "rock of Dumbarton" -- a huge, deep expanse of rock under most of Georgetown -- was too difficult to cut a Metro tunnel through. One of the enduring mysteries of DC will always be "why doesn't Georgetown have a Metro stop?"
Good luck to those people living next to the Whitehurst when they begin to tear it down and then when they're constructing the tunnel or whatever will replace it. Hope you don't have to sell your million-dollar condo in a rush while all that construction mess is going on.
It ain't broke, so don't fix it. Fix what's really broken in DC first!
I've no idea about how the cost to tear down. I do seem to recall, though, that it will need to be reconstructed soon. Someone in the city (CFO Ghandi? DDOT money-guy Jelen?) must have run an analysis of this.
Agreed that there will be some big private money winners in this- that's inevitable. But I think the most significant impact will be on the riverfront property, which is owned by NPS. I think it may be among the land to be transfered to DC- I'm pretty sure those development rights will be ours.
Framed this way:
Riverfront development rights? Or an expensive elevated freeway?
Mark - Ahhh, if the Whitehurst has to be reconstructed anyway, that's a totally different conversation. And you have invoked the name of the CFO Ghandi, as reputable and wise as any official in DC; I would be inclined to defer to Ghandi's judgement if he's against the Whitehurst.
Hill Rat:
Just to support my understanding that the Whitehurst will either be reconstructed or come down, here's an excerpt from CM Evans' March 25 2005 newletter, in which he discusses the matter:
---
Whitehurst Freeway feasibility study begins with April 7 and 30 public meetings
....blah blah.....
"The Whitehurst Freeway was built in 1949 and is nearing the end of its expected life. We must either replace it or find an alternative solution such as an underground passage or an at-grade boulevard. Whatever the decision, it must not further complicate the traffic and congestion in Foggy Bottom and Georgetown," Evans said. "The critical importance this artery plays in the flow of traffic into and out of downtown is why I advocate for any removal of the elevated highway to be offset with a comparable alternative. The opportunity to study and act on this issue is now and I look forward to receiving community input."
The study will examine the traffic impacts of removing the Whitehurst Freeway, the engineering requirements for connecting Canal Road with M Street and K Street, and engineering requirements for removing the freeway, if feasible. This study will also examine the economic impact on land values on the Georgetown waterfront if the freeway were removed. Finally, the study will produce several concept designs for alternative methods of providing transportation connections through the Georgetown waterfront for transit, automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Without the Whitehurst, I wouldn't go to Kotobuki.