November 16, 2006

For Better or Worse, Fenty's Parking Plan Approved

2006_1116_FentyOnStreet.jpgMayor-Elect Adrian Fenty’s most celebrated quality is his rigor for getting the small things done. Ward 4 supporters tell tales of the Councilman as Blackberry-brandishing musketeer, sweeping in to remedy urgent street repairs and the like. By contrast, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams’ supporters have always heralded his ability to dream big. Details be damned, he’s the guy with the grand vision: a growing, vibrant city; attractive to businesses and middle class residents, and with enough wealth to look after its neediest.

That difference in leadership style was readily apparent on Tuesday, when the D.C. Council took up the latest (and final?) proposal to provide the 1,225 parking spaces required by the stadium lease. In what was heralded as the first major political victory of his incoming administration, the council approved Fenty’s proposal to go ahead and build two three-story above-ground garages north of the stadium and another two-story garage to the south. According to Fenty, “the decision made not only allows the project to go forward without any further risk of damages or liability but also continues to encourage a lot of economic development in the area.”

Photo by Flickr user DCMatt.

But does it? This was Williams in June:

I strongly believe that it’s in the best long-term interest of the District to put these parking spaces underground, not above-ground as is frequently done in the suburbs. It will serve the ballpark as well as the surrounding community for us to place this parking garage below ground so that we can build a productive mix of affordable housing, office, retail or residential development on top of the project. If we put the cars underground, as we do throughout most of the city, the District will reap more long-term benefits and millions of dollars in tax revenue. I want to encourage everyone involved in the undertaking to keep their eye on the big picture; we aren’t just building a stadium. We are creating a healthy cluster of development that will raise the standard of living for all our residents, reshape both sides of the Anacostia River and help make our city a livable and walkable place for the next 100 years. We should not sacrifice that vision for short-term gains.
Except, you know, when reality intervenes. Months elapsed while Williams, the council, and Herb Miller daydreamed with no results; many feel that it’s now time to compromise and just get something done.

It’s Fenty Time.

Fenty’s approved proposal overrides a Zoning Commission ruling that bans exposed garages, due to their detrimental effect on economic development. It also throws some cold water in the face of the Wrigleyville-on-the-Anacostia dreams of urban planners. But the plan is a boon to the Lerners, who have always supported the quickest means possible to get the necessary parking next to the stadium, so everything is ready for Opening Day 2008.

Council-members David Catania (I-At Large), Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), and Carol Schwarz (R-At Large) voted against the measure, hoping to preserve the goal of a mixed use district and leverage the city’s investment as much as possible. Fenty, unsurprisingly, disagreed: it’s time to stop the dreaming and get the deal done.


Email This Entry







Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!

Comments (8)

How does letting the Lerners have their way completely, eliminating any possibility for the area around the stadium to become a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood qualify as a "victory"?

 

I haven't seen the plans for this design (has anyone?) but what is the sense in two 3-story garages and one 2-story, rather than one 6-8 story garage with a fraction of the footprint? The planned neighborhood density will allow it, for sure. Unless these are going to be some wacky mixed-use garages this is going to kill any good urban design that was planned for the neighborhood.

 

There might be several ideas behind multiple garages. One might be to facilitate foot and/or auto traffic. Another might be to hold the land for future use. A third might be to avoid extra buildings costs associated with taller structures.

Whatever, it would be nice if the Learners would put in writing their reported willingness to allow us to tear down these garages at some future date and replace them with underground structures.

In the parking biz, I've been told there are tiers of desirability when it comes to parking stock. below ground parking is apparently at the lowest rung, due to the psychological impact on the prospective user. Streetfront parking or lot parking is more desirable to them.

 

"them" being the lot owner.

 

The chances of these garages being torn down for mixed use in the future is almost nil.

Maybe we can at least hope for a few restaurants or such on the first floor. Something to liven up the street scene and enhance the ballpark experience.

 

I agree with you Hillman, that's why I want the Lerner's media overture to be reduced (elevated) to writing. Why allow them to knowingly give false comfort?

 

"Maybe we can at least hope for a few restaurants or such on the first floor. Something to liven up the street scene and enhance the ballpark experience."

This is really sad that we are even having this discussion. Remember all those artist renderings of the future "ballpark district", with sidewalk cafes, street entertainment, etc? Sigh...I'm really losing patience with DC. No one fights to make a better city. Its always short-sighted thinking about the bottom line :(

 

The entire thing is BS and ought to be torn dwn at the first opportunity- the garages and the stadium

wwwfsbushs.blogspot.com

 
Post a comment (Comment Policy)