We Need the New Comprehensive Plan Now — Not!

This was written in response to a thread that started with Sue Hemberger ("Hold Out for a Plan That Works") countered in the next issue by "We Need the New Comprehensive Plan Now" by Cheryl Cort. From the current issue of themail:

We all the know the "not" joke, featured in the new Borat movie. More importantly, we need to think long and hard about the comprehensive plan, especially in terms of DC and its legacy of great planning, starting from the very beginning with L’Enfant, and carried forward by the McMillan Commission (see "History of Planning in Washington"), and the Legacy Plan vision from NCPC in the late 1990s.

Just because thousands of people (including me) went to meetings doesn’t necessarily mean a great final document was produced, and I would hope that all the people who contributed their time and energy wouldn’t, just like our mothers told us, “jump off the Brooklyn Bridge just because your friend would.”

Quality, not just quantity, should be what matters here.

This isn’t to disrespect the effort put into the plan, or the work of the Office of Planning. They had a lot to do in an extremely accelerated time frame. Because of that acceleration, the document is far from perfect. Rather than go ahead with something less than ideal, many of us are asking for more time to produce a truly excellent document that guides the land use and business of the city into the 21st century, and this isn’t merely a matter of “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

L’Enfant set a high bar, one that we should recognize when trying to rush something through for the sake of rush. We are the stewards of DC’s built environment, and the decisions that are made today, for good and bad, shape the Washington that we leave to our children and grandchildren, to the citizens of the United States, and to the world (as well as to students of planning history).

There are serious gaps in the Plan. The Transportation Element is weak. Transportation Demand Management should be made the primary transportation policy, and it isn’t. Urban Design should be laid out as the primary organizing principle concerning what gets built. It isn’t.

Because the city’s competitive advantages rest on its historic architecture and urban design, oriented around the pedestrian, as well as the provision of great mobility that is not dependent on automobility, not emphasizing and strengthening these elements allows the continued diminishment of the city and its built environment. And there are many other issues that need to be more thoroughly addressed as well.

Additionally, the amendment process to the plan while it is before City Council allows for a great deal of change without any substantive citizen input, and time for review.

I have been informed that within the last couple weeks, Holland and Knight, the law firm with the most active real estate practice in the city, submitted two hundred pages of suggested amendments to the plan. Two hundred pages!

As it is, the Land Use and Area Elements do not have justification statements for why particular recommendations are made, making it easy for lobbyists to change the plan despite the original intent. And without real time to review the proposed changes, not just from Holland and Knight, but from other developer interests, puts citizens at a real disadvantage.

I am appalled by the various groups continuing to advocate for the plan, acknowledging deep faults, but making the argument that it could be a lot worse, that nimby opposition makes it miraculous that it is as good as it is. If they aren’t advocating for Urban Design and Transportation Design Management first and foremost, then their objectives aren’t about maintaining city livability, they are about something else.

Why are we so willing to accept, if not mediocrity (my apologies to Barry Miller, Ellen McCarthy, Don Edwards, and others for using that word) something that is much less than great?

I am so tired of hearing the powers-that-be bandy about how Washington is a “world-class city” when time after time we do not even attempt to achieve from the outset, “world-class outcomes.”

Since when is a demand for excellence seen as something to be derided?

Index Keywords: urban-design-placemaking; urban-revitalization; transportation