The last two days have been extraordinarily busy both on this blog and in the community. The Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan has now been pushed off the Planning Commission and City Council calendars for February. More on that later, including updates on the Great Grocery Store caper.But it's time to apply Occam's razor to the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan and get to the essentials.
We're not talking about a shaving implement, but a principle of logic developed by 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham which advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.
Nobody claims the Braddock Road Plan is scientific, but there's been such a steady march of public meetings and work sessions, combined with an avalanche of detail, that in trying to divine what the community wants our leaders have lost site of the forest for the trees.
Let the Growler take a swipe:
Residents have clearly identified the broad outlines of what they want: well-designed development; more open, usable green space; walkable streets, more amenities (including better retail); and protection of the historic neighborhood. There are quibbles about the details but these are the essentials.
What we're being told, however, is that this can only be achieved with rezoning and massive, dense development, particularly in the north end of the study area. Yet it is only common sense that greater density will bring more traffic and exacerbate parking problems.
So here's the challenge: Prove to us that a lower density Cameron Station or Chatham Square-like approach won't meet those same community objectives.
18 comments:
I went with the flow until I got to the challenge. What exactly is The Growler's point?
Didn't Chatam Square require a lot of federal and local money, or an up-zoning of the property? How do we pay for all of the ammenities we want, get the open space and high quality development if we are not giving the property owners something? And how does the high quality retail we want work without the ground floor space to put it in? How much does that space cost to build? And how do we get more underground parking or just parking in general, if we don't have development to pay for it? Or do we just ask the City spend the money to do it all? And how does the current zoning of land fit into all of this? And is all of that worth the traffic or would we rather have things stay as they are? I have a lot of questions. Is there going to be another public meeting or is the city just going to move forward without input?
Affordable housing is the unspoken agenda. Visionless politicians are willing add density to each condo project in return for a few extra units. The majority are saddled with the remaining chaos. This Plan so far is a chaotic one.
The problem Growler, is that to achieve all those objectives that residents say they want (and what they want is debatable) and to meet City mandates is just not possible. There is no challenge there. How do you create open green space and yet
also provide affordable housing as mandated by the City? How do you build a Cameron Station neighborhood in a high-crime area?
How do you build Chatham Square without federal funding or city funding?How do you build retail in a high-crime area unless you lower crime first and add more residents who would be willing to use the retail?
All these things are incompatible
You think people in the northern study area are going to complain if you built Cameron Station. Hell no. At this point most people would taken anything and everything they could get.
But instead, the main problem is that it seems in search of the perfect plan, certain residents just want to keep planning and planning, without acknowledging compromises have to be made and certain things wanted have to be given up in exchange for other things.
Fine, you don't want density, then give up affordable housing as an idea. Want green space? Then forget rapid transit going through Braddock Field and accept it on Route 1. Want to preserve public housing in its current numbers at the Braddock Metro? Then expect problems with your idea of walkable streets.
And every resident also agrees that plans produce NOTHING. If they did, the 1992 plan would have been more than enough. How much longer can this process go on?
"Affordable housing is the unspoken agenda. Visionless politicians are willing add density to each condo project in return for a few extra units."
To everyone in the northern study area, that has ALWAYS been the agenda. Since the rest of the City does not take on its fair share of affordable housing, its near impossible to simply start building Cameron Station style townhomes north of Pendleton.
And since City leaders have no spine to redevelop public housing, you are left with having to build dense buildings around it to compensate affordable housing advocates who scream for more units.
anonymous said ...
"How does the high quality retail we want work without the ground floor space to put it in?"
Check out the small but thriving retail center at Slater's Lane, with Rustico, Buzz, the Russian deli, etc. Stand-alone single story retail built as part of the Potomac Greens development, which was townhouses.
anonymous said ...
"How do you create open green space ...?"
There's at least one route that doesn't require a density tradeoff. During the plan charrettes there was discussion about the City buying the open land where the Braddock Place condo project is proposed. (Unhappy locals have stalled the project for months.) It's been proposed as a priority site on the City's open space list for 2007.
So is the City really willing to step up and buy it or was that talk of open space in each of the three sectors just a lot of blather and ruse to bring pressure on the owner/developer?
Maybe one of our readers in the Braddock Place area can update us on this...
Isn't that land worth a few million because of the underlying zoning? Is that a good place to spend the open space money or would our neighborhood rather have money like that spent on lights, sidewalks, better alley's, and other infrastructure?
Sure there is a thriving retail center at Slater's Lane. It's not in the middle of a large public housing development.
The retail tenants don't seem to be lining up to rent the available spaces in Monarch, Madison or Braddock Place. Wonder why?
"certain residents just want to keep planning and planning, without acknowledging compromises have to be made"
Please can you tell me how you would compromise on those issues of greatest importance to you? Personally I lay the problem at the Mayor's door. He wants to change the neighborhood dramatically at the same time he wants portions of it to remain as he remembers them.
"During the plan charrettes there was discussion about the City buying the open land where the Braddock Place condo project is proposed. (Unhappy locals have stalled the project for months.) It's been proposed as a priority site on the City's open space list for 2007."
Growler can you verify your claim by linking the reference? Is that why Bud Hart continues to enlist the ICCA to back his Braddock Place project. I've always wondered why the ICCA agendas included such projects.
Aha! You have to look carefully at the wording of the 2007 Open Space list.
Braddock Place and the Braddock Road Metro parking lot were both listed as "Master List Open Open Space Priorities" in 2005.
But it appears that in 2007 the original list has now been split into two lists: "Valuable Open Space Acquisition Sites" and "Valuable Open Space Protection Sites."
The difference is that one group of owners is willing to sell and the other won't negotiate at this time or may change their minds.
The Braddock sites are footnoted as follows: "The Braddock Road Small Area Plan now under discussion and review will address how open space can be an element of the development of these two sites."
The net effect is that both sites which are currently open space may be reduced by as much as three quarters after development.
FYI, 1261 Madison is back on the February Planning Commission docket.
Here's the link to the Open Space Committee report, presented to Council last Tuesday (January 9).
http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/fy07/010907rm/di17.pdf
See pp. 4 for the 2007 list and pp. 24-25 for the 2005 master list.
"So is the City really willing to step up and buy it or was that talk of open space in each of the three sectors just a lot of blather and ruse to bring pressure on the owner/developer?"
And here you get into the problems of tradeoffs and compromises?
If the City pumps in 3 million (whether by sale or force through eminent domain) where would they also get the money to do all the resiting of the public housing units that you keep saying they should do? Would they also pump in 3 million to buy land for resited Adkins and Bland units?
Pretty soon the City's investment becomes more than the taxpayers want to pay. And this is where compromise needs to come in; you take something and give up something else.
Except that doesnt seem to be happening in this planning process.
"Check out the small but thriving retail center at Slater's Lane, with Rustico, Buzz, the Russian deli, etc. Stand-alone single story retail built as part of the Potomac Greens development, which was townhouses."
Location, location, location Growler
Go back and read your "I Dream of Retail" post (and delete #1 and #2 while you are at it)
Looking at the planning map most of the potential sites for retail are in the northern area. Do you think Rustico would have opened across from Adkins? See any chance of Delray Dreamery on the corner of Madison and Patrick?
I certainly see where you want to go but unless retailers know that some changes are coming and they are set in stone there is little incentive to commit.
"Prove to us that a lower density Cameron Station or Chatham Square-like approach won't meet those same community objectives."
Growler, prove to us that the Chatham Square approach is guaranteed to be built at the Adkins and Bland sites and I believe you will have the lower density development you want, with all the mom and pop stores you can handle.
So they are going to allow both Braddock Place and Payne Street Condomiums to be pushed through even though the plan is in flux?
"The net effect is that both sites which are currently open space may be reduced by as much as three quarters after development."
Thanks for spending the time to research this issue for us. By asking you to verify my goal was not to impune but rather to keep the debate nonemotional. The report's reference to "element," tells me that development is the city's preferred option.
I repeat what I said in an early entry. The problem is the timeline. Let's insist the politicians present a public housing alternative especially Adkins prior to the release of the Braddock Road Small Area Plan. When change occurs then we can see just how fast the rest of neighborhood turns. Otherwise the retail problem is type. The 500 block of N. Fayette Street already includes a furniture store, a high end auction house. and auto repair. A popular catering business is also nearby. The Monarch's location is not that complicated by crime so I am looking for developer savvy to produce retail soon. To date The Monarch's pitch has been two parts reality and one part retail who-ha.
Post a Comment