April 29, 2007
No Place to Park?
Former Editor-in-Chief Ryan Avent writes a weekly column about neighborhood and development issues.
Early this year, I took advantage of one of our strangely mild January days and went on a short walk with my dog. I was tossing a ball for the little guy on an ugly square of WMATA-owned scrub near the Brookland Metro station, when a fellow resident of the neighborhood came by and encouraged me to defend the grassy lot from the onrush of Development, which was sure to leave me and my dog with no place to roam. The neighbor is not alone in his opinion that empty land near Metro is important; parts of the community have become quite worried by the prospect of dense, transit-oriented growth around the station, and particularly the potential loss of that block of weeds and gravel, which is euphemistically called Green Space in anti-development circles.
These days, as the tree limbs sag with the weight of new leaves and the evenings grow longer and warmer, pup and I focus our wanderings on the streets around the Turkey Thicket Community Center, along with the rest of the good people of Brookland. We walk there to watch the rugby team practice and the kids kicking soccer balls, to say hello to the other strollers and dogwalkers and see if there are any tennis courts empty (there never are), and to meet and greet the other people who share our little corner of the city. It's a damn fine way to spend an hour before sunset. And over at the little piece of scrub land -- the Green Space -- commuters walk quickly by to get home, the better to throw on some comfortable shoes and join everyone else at Turkey Thicket.
Not all open space is created equal--not even close, as it turns out. While last century's planners made a fetish of openness and green in city environments, thinkers like Jane Jacobs pointed out that many of the openest and greenest spots were also the emptiest and saddest. Green is lovely, but in a growing city wasted land is extremely costly.
The point should be especially clear in Brookland, where the thriving residential community has had difficulty inspiring a diverse array of retail and entertainment options. Part of the challenge to retailers is the neighborhood's low population density. Much of Brookland consists of single-family homes, and the areas zoned for greater density -- such as that near the Metro station -- remain underdeveloped, with pieces of scrub Green Space and decaying industrial lots. Dense development around the station would add pedestrians and life to the commercial corridors, without threatening the quiet character of the leafy streets east of 12th Street, and yet some residents oppose such growth, demanding the protection of openness. And still, the outdoor activities concentrate themselves at Turkey Thicket, while the empty lot here and the grassy waste there go ignored.
Photo by Terecico.
Jacobs, and others since, noted that often the most endearing part of green space and parks in city neighborhoods is the way that their scarcity allows them to act as a focal point. It's easy to see this in Dupont Circle or Meridian Hill Park, where the dearth of other gathering spots funnels activity into charming centers of life. Places like Meridian Hill, or like Turkey Thicket in Brookland, wouldn't be half so enjoyable if the people who gathered there instead spread themselves around. Many of those who come to those parks, do so just because so many others are there. Other people, it turns out, are fun to watch, fun to meet and talk to, and fun to be around.
Of course, every city should have great open parks available, and our city certainly does. There are immense public green places in and around the District, from enormous Rock Creek Park, to the Mall and Potomac Park, to the areas around the shores of the Anacostia which, with appropriate cleanup, might one day be the finest natural areas in the city. The District government would be wise not only to take good care of those places, but also to improve access to them by funding transit, completing bike lanes, and delivering on promised trails and greenways.
The matter is more important than whether a bit of land here and there should be grass or a parking lot or a small mixed-use development. The way we use our land impacts the quality of life across the entire metropolitan area. Last week, I wrote that restricting housing supply can push up home prices; certainly we should be aware that choosing to have an underused plot of green instead of an apartment building or row houses increases housing costs. Unused open space represents lost tax revenue to D.C., no small matter given the high proportion of city land already off-limits to the treasury, and it limits business opportunity, both by reducing residential population and by making retail space more scarce. Perhaps most significant, choosing too much open space in center cities is environmentally troublesome. The Post reports today that Washington area emissions spiked over the past four years, due largely to rapid growth in exurbs. Residents of cities use far less land than those living in exurbs, and they're much more likely to walk or use public transit. When city residents do drive, their average trip is much shorter than one which originates in the far 'burbs. It's far, far better for the environment to use a square of city land for residential property as opposed to piddling green space.
A city without green, without open spaces for softball games and weekend strolls, would be a very unpleasant place to live. Happily, the District is no such place. Pretending that we're woefully short of parkland or falling under the spell of those who'd argue that more open space is always and everywhere better is no way to plan. We do ourselves a disservice by insisting on too much of it.
|
Parks are quirky creatures, that can either become a neighborhood gathering place, or simply a place to deposit dog crap. A beautiful, serene oasis in the midst of urbanity, or an unpleasant homeless shanty town. The utility of these spaces is often determined by a variety of factors which may be out of the control of city planners. But I have to admit, I'm a little lost on the causal connection between usable parkland and attracting dense development to a neighborhood like Brookland. I think there's more a chicken-and-egg problem between having/attracting amenities and having/attracting the population base to support them.
Brookland can't attract retail because of a perception of crime. Del Ray has pretty similar housing stock base, and they've got some terrific retail. The difference? The perception of crime.
Everything in DC comes down to crime. Which means everything comes down to the police. Sadly, we're still dealing with a largely inept and lazy police force (with some standout exceptions).
And I agree with CD. A park can be lovely. Or it can be like McPherson Square, downtown, where you are just as likely to be pissed on by a wino than you are to enjoy bonding with fellow citizens.
Again, a police issue. When's the last time any of us saw MPD actually deal with public urination or drinking?
CD, you're correct that parks are quirky and unpredictable things. I'm primarily addressing the quantity side of things (though I think that quantity does affect quality, as I mention in the piece, by focusing or dispersing activity). I've found that neighborhoods are often reluctant to accept development on underused lots, saying that they prefer green space instead. Brookland is one example, the Armed Forces Retirement Home near Petworth is another. Sometimes, some open space really is needed. Often, residents just don't want to see more density.
Hillman, is there a perception that Brookland is crime ridden? I don't recall feeling that before I moved there, and I would say I feel much safer in Brookland than I did when I lived in Columbia Heights.
My husband grew up just outside of Del Rey and we now live in Brookland and he often notes how much this looks like the Del Rey of his youth. He doesn't know if this will change into that or if we even want that (Cheese shop, anyone?) but I think it's valid to point out that Del Rey hasn't always been affluent. Neighborhoods wax and wane, ever changing.
And why the photo of Dupont Circle instead of a shot of Turkey Thicket?
I work in Brookland and live in Columbia Heights... Brookland is definitely bleaker in its appearance than Columbia Heights. I could see why bleak might equal crime in some people's minds.
Of course, there have been 3 shootings in a week in Columbia Heights, and I've still yet to ever see a police officer standing or walking or doing anything but driving by. Are they allowed to get out of their cars?
"And I agree with CD. A park can be lovely. Or it can be like McPherson Square, downtown, where you are just as likely to be pissed on by a wino than you are to enjoy bonding with fellow citizens."
Hillman: No one lives near enough to McPherson Square to take ownership of it. I know a man who recalls growing up on the 1700 Block of RI Ave and playing there (along with lots of other kids) as a child, but he's, like, 90 now.
The MD and VA office workers who want a nice place to eat lunch need to pressure NPS. Otherwise, sadly, I've higher priorities.
The last thing you want to do is give public open space to developers. Open space is the most valuable asset a community has and once you let it go you will never get it back. Sure it may look like crap now, but when it turns into another hipster chain or overpriced cookie cutter condos, I bet you will regret your sentiment.
As for perception of crime: In real estate, perception is 9/10 of everything; reality is just a nuisance.
Ryan:
Yes, there is a perception of crime in Brookland.
I honestly don't know the crime stats and how they stack up. But you ask most DC residents and they will tell you they think Brookland is high crime. The Col Brooks Tavern killings didn't help. Yes, they were an isolated event. But fairly or not it was high profile, and associated specifically with Brookland.
But, then, you ask most NW DC residents and they will swear my own Capitol Hill neighborhood is one giant crime scene. But I guarantee you at least in my part there is a lot less street crime than there are in many parts of NW, including the much-touted U Street, 14th Street, and other hipster areas.
That's why I was careful to refer to a perception of crime rather than crime itself.
Jocyln:
No, DC cops cannot get out of their cars. Back in the Barry years MPD cars were outfitted with a special device that hermetically seals the officer inside the car from the second the step inside to the end of their shift. If they get out to actually walk a beat or speak with residents to get to know a neighborhood their squad car explodes, their guns malfunction in a cleary sexual metaphor sort of way, and they are shunned and mocked by their in-car counterparts.
This is changing slowly, but MPD is still a reactionary police force, with a ton of dead weight cops.
Equally frustrating is the MPD culture itself, which punishes cops that do try to be proactive. There are countless stories of MPD hearings and findings that punish officers for what most police forces would consider proactive police work. Quite a few cops give up in frustration after having numerous bogus claims brought against them by crackheads and others with a hatred of cops (this is not to excuse real cases of police brutality). DC is know throughout the country for constantly punishing it's officers with internal investigations and such that never see the light of day outside the Department.
So it's small wonder that many simply lower their heads and wait out their shifts rather than actually try to make a difference.
RJ, the point is that you give the right spaces to developers. Transit-oriented development is sustainable, livable, and convenient. Putting parks next to Metro stations, or even dropping density restrictions on those areas compromises the health of the city in far worse ways that losing some greenery.
The Brookland green space would be wasted, little more than a place to walk through on the way home. Other places would be wasted on developers, like a lot of the edge properties on Rock Creek Park.
Yes, there is a perception of crime in Brookland.
Brookland isn't exactly a low crime area. According to crimemap.dc.gov, PSA 502 has seen 28 robberies and 26 assaults this year, which puts it in the same league as Kingman Park (22 robberies, 24 assaults.) To be fair: Dupont Circle (PSA 306) saw more robberies, and Columbia Heights / Park View (PSA 302) is absolutely on fire. But compared to other low-density, bustle-free neighborhoods like, say, Hillcrest, Shepherd Park, or Spring Valley, Brookland is rather dangerous.
But the problem may not be Brookland itself. In many ways, Brookland and Woodridge have held up better through the rough years than much of Northeast. You can tell that just by driving down Monroe Ave. But Brookland is in close proximity to other neighborhoods that have not held up so well (Edgewood, Eckington, Brentwood, Fort Totten, etc.) So the comparison to Del Ray is apt in more ways than one. Pre-Target, Potomac Yard was a Superfund site, and before that, it was a rail yard (just like Brentwood.) Back then most of the neighborhoods adjacent to and straddling Route 1 were very working class--no cheese shops, no MOM, no Fireflies. There was definitely a perception of crime. But eventually there came a tipping point when the desirables--sleepy suburban streets, access to mass transit, affordable, well-maintained housing stock, etc.--overcame the perception.
I don't know if the same thing will happen in Brookland. It seems likely. It also seems likely that injecting some new construction into the mix will speed along the process. If you are in favor of bringing new people and new incomes into the neighborhood, then the green patch around the Metro is wasted space. I personally don't think that losing the space would do much to hurt the neighborhood, as long as the development is centered around the Metro station. Even if the ground floor is dry cleaners and Starbucks. Because here's another way in which Brookland is like Del Ray: the Metro station is on the periphery of the neighborhood. Brookland's main drag is 13th Street, Del Ray's is Mount Vernon Ave, and both are some distance from their respective stations. There are high-rise towers at Braddock Road and north of Commonwealth Ave, and they certainly haven't turned Del Ray into Crystal City.
I don't recognize the site in the photo that accompanies this commentary. Is it near the Brookland Metro? Please identify the location. Thank you.
re: is there a perception of crime in brookland?
of course there is. it's the VERY REASON why the students at catholic university frequent only johnny k's (now known as "the library") on 12th street. and in that case the benefit (getting alcohol with a fisher-price fake ID) outweights the risk (getting mugged on the way home)
if the students felt safer, they would go there more often.
Kee, the photo is of Dupont Circle. As sophiagrrl mentioned above, I was remiss in failing to use a shot of Turkey Thicket. My bad.
Near metro stations is where you NEED to develop multi-family housing. This encourages less driving, it brings a lot of new residents, and residents bring retail and entertainment options. Complaining about possible development in a location like that is Nimby-ism at its worst.
re: is there a perception of crime in brookland?
of course there is. it's the VERY REASON why the students at catholic university frequent only johnny k's (now known as "the library") on 12th street. and in that case the benefit (getting alcohol with a fisher-price fake ID) outweights the risk (getting mugged on the way home)
if the students felt safer, they would go there more often.
I was driving by this space this weekend and thought it seemed like such a waste. My thoughts were that it would make a great dog park since our neighborhood does not have one. But then I guess that's not really a possibility given the City's ridiculous restrictions on having them.
I personally do not have a problem with it being developed though. Although there are people who would never move to Brookland due to its perception of crime, there are plenty of others who would that might not be able to afford or want a single-family home and would love to live within walking distance of the metro. I think the main problem urban development in many communities is that the people who live there are not allowed to provide input for what is built. If people in the neighborhood had a say, then I think there would be less of a "NIMBY" attitude.
"I think the main problem urban development in many communities is that the people who live there are not allowed to provide input for what is built."
The opposite is also true. There is a such thing as too much democracy, and sometimes a process that involves community input slows things down or grinds them to a halt entirely. I have sat thru and participated in many community "charettes" and workshops, and they can get unproductive and excruciating, a case of having too many cooks in the kitchen.
Good show, Ryan. Too often these days the NIMBY cries for more open space are nothing but thinly veiled and poorly thought-out excuses to stop development wherever possible.
Another point about parks at this scale: City squares are only as good as the buildings surrounding them. Dupont Circle would be a barren wasteland if it wasn’t surrounded by a high density of extremely active uses.
Even if this patch of weeds in Brookland were cleaned up and made into the nicest park in the city, it would continue to be underused without a lot of dense development surrounding it and framing it as an “outdoor room”.
Opposing TOD at that location is folly for every conceivable reason. Odds are you’ll get a BETTER (though smaller) park with some decent development.
Thank you for this interesting article, but I did not see a mention of the fact that the grass in Meridian Hill Park is all ripped up and surrounded by a fence. Does anyone know what they're doing or how long it's going to last? I miss my green space!
As usual, BeyondDC makes an appearance with oodles of wisdom about how gathering places (and specifically Dupont) work. Can't say that enough: "city squares are only as good as the buildings surrounding them."
Places like Brookland in the city need to figure out how to embrace some density (even just slight increases like attached rowhomes) near their main transit corridors (bus and rail) to build that critical mass of people that can support expanded retail. The lower numbers of people who are available within walking distance can make it hard for an entreprenuer to open a restaurant on Brookland's main drag, leaving the current residents with less options. That's part of the catch-22 for the Brooklanders who want more "to do" in their downtown — more people will help bring investment by entreprenuers.
It would serve Brookland and other similar older outlying neighborhoods well to have a plethora of housing options in their area, not just single family homes. (which are all fine and good, btw)
A quick perusal of "real estate for sale" on Craig's List shows that Brookland is MUCH cheaper than Columbia Heights. That must be because of a perception of crime.
Re: where Catholic U. students hang out... I work at the Hospital Center and the only place in Brookland we've ever frequented as a social outing was Island Jim's, which, notably, smells like a horse stall.
I am a little tickled by some of the comments.
1. Brookland is perceived as a high crime area? I must say I have never heard that. With the exception of the isolated Col. Brooks incident I was unaware that I lived in "high crime" area or even one perceived as "high crime." Arguing that differences in the price of real estate listings on Craigslist must be because of a perception of crime is ridiculous. They are any number of reasons for that which have absolutely nothing to do with crime. To name a few: Target, Tivoli, Giant, restaurants, condo development, proximity to downtown, adjacency to Dupont/AM/U Street, housing density. Those are much better explanations for housing price differences. If Brookland is a "high crime" area, DC is the safest city in the world.
2. With regard to density, I moved from Arlington to Brookland because of affordablity. If you want an example of how density around metro stations can work, take a trip to the Clarendon metro stop on a Friday night or Saturday. Notice that around the metro stop there are office buildings, Barnes and Noble, Crate and Barrel, tons of restaurants, high rise condos, Whole Foods, etc. Then walk just one block... one block outside the main area and it turns into a quiet residential neighborhood with barely a hint of the mini-metropolis steps away. It makes no sense to let those open lots next to metro stay as they are. They should be developed into mid-rise condo bldgs with underground parking and street level retail. With proper attention given to parking, sidewalks, and Michigan/Monroe/12th St traffic flows there is no reason to expect degradation of the quality of life in Brookland. In fact the opposite is more likely.
Brookland is a wonderful community with the potential to be a thriving urban village.