Choosing your development future

Christopher sends us this article, "Choosing a future for San Francisco's Bayview," from the San Francisco Chronicle, about the proposed redevelopment of an old shipyard, totaling more than one square mile of developable land.

The touching off point for the article is that there are two "competing" referendums on the project, one is a nonbinding endorsement, while the other calls for the land to be redeveloped with 50% affordable housing.

The 770 acres of land to be redeveloped in San Francisco is not really in use these days in post-industrial America. SF Chronicle photo.

From the article:

Supporters [of the affordable housing referendum] have raised concerns that Lennar's proposed development, instead of improving housing conditions for existing residents, would rapidly gentrify the area and displace people who won't be able to afford higher housing and living costs.

That's interesting because the land has no housing on it, so it's tough to argue the gentrification point. What do you do, not develop a place, because it will lead to changes?

The article is in-depth and long, and so I find it interesting to contrast to the article from yesterday's Washington Post, "Filling a Blank Canvas at Catholic University: Developer Proposes Housing-Retail Mix," on redevelopment of some land owned by Catholic University adjacent to the Brookland Metro Station.

The article didn't get into the neighborhood "discussion," commented on in other blogs such as Greater Greater Washington and The Bellows, which has been more focused on redevelopment of the WMATA Metro site.

-- Brookland/CUA Metro Station Small Area Plan (Ongoing) from the DC Office of Planning website

Brookland's community narrative is that it has successfully fought off development for decades. After all, Brookland was to be partially destroyed by a freeway, and the neighborhood was a hotbed of activism for the Emergency Committee on the Transportation Crisis, the anti-freeway activist movement that helped to spawn the WMATA subway system in place of freeways.

But is redeveloping the Metro site a bad idea? (Although I do say that the opponents have a point, that green space could and should be preserved on the block between Newton, Otis, 9th, and 10th Streets).

Unlike the SF project, you can't argue that the area won't be impacted. There are houses across the street on 10th Street (there is no 11th Street in Brookland), and on Newton, Otis, and Perry Streets as you walk between the subway station and 12th Street. And the 700 block of Lawrence Street, with some housing, abuts the southern end of the Abdo project.

There is and will be great pressure to rezone the land the between 10th and 12th Street, currently mostly occupied by houses (although many are owned commercially and used as either group homes or rented to CUA students).

The planner part of me says that's logical. That you need stronger walkways between the subway station and the nascent commercial district. That you need more density to strengthen the core of the neighborhood, which continues to dissipate commercially for a number of reasons, one of which is lack of density.

(Note that on average, Brookland has about 40% of the density of rowhouse neighborhoods such as Eckington, H Street, or Capitol Hill. And all of these neighborhoods in turn are less dense than places like Columbia Heights or Dupont Circle or Adams Morgan, which is why by comparison the commercial districts in those NW neighborhoods are more likely to be successful.)

The historic preservationist part of me starts a bit. I hate to lose historic building stock. And in either case, it's very difficult to tell homeowners that their block is going to be converted to commercial. Some will welcome it and cash out. Others will fight it, and their desire to do so should be understood.

Post graphic. Caption: Catholic University has chosen Jim Abdo to develop nine acres off Michigan Avenue NE. The project is to include about 800 housing units, space for artists, retail outlets and a new clock tower..

The interesting thing is the scale. In DC, finding a 9 acre parcel is a big deal. And the Metro site is what, maybe 6 acres?

The SF project is 770 acres! But in either case, the land is underutilized.

And the redevelopment of the sites in Brookland would have many benefits. It will add tax paying population to the city. It will convert non property tax paying land to tax paying land. It will add population to support local business in the neighborhood and the city. It will provide riders for the immediately abutting transit. It will provide the opportunity to strengthen the street fabric and area in a way that better supports transit, walking, and bicycling, over driving.

Brookland, despite the presence of the subway station, is an automobile-centric community. But that can change.