A request for proposals isn't a plan

Is a point I make time after time, with regard to projects in DC, especially those involving government-owned (which is really "people-owned") land and buildings. A solid plan needs to be in place, and it is a mistake believing that a couple of community meetings and a short positioning brief will suffice.

I won't claim that the Visioning process I helped conduct in DC's West End is the best possible example of what to do (follow up sessions were needed to make it fully complete) but it did try to do three very important things:

1. Considering each of the area's civic assets (mostly locally owned, but including certain key federally controlled assets) in a coordinated and connected fashion;

2. Coming up with a framework to consider neighborhood priorities in the context of what would otherwise be individual proposals to develop specific parcels/civic assets;

3. Providing residents and civic associations with the context necessary to consider proposals to (re)develop parcels/assets individually as well as within the broader neighborhood context.

In that neighborhood there are two schools (an expanded Francis and a deaccessioned Stevens Elementary), a fire station, a police department facility, the West End branch of the public library, the recreation center adjoining Francis, and Washington Circle, which is managed by the National Park Service (plus the issue of streets, sidewalks, mobility and transportation), plus the proximity of Rock Creek Park and the presence of George Washington University. Plus the Foggy Bottom subway station and complementary bus routes.

Other processes I've witnessed (particularly around the Hine School site on Capitol Hill) are a bit more chaotic, because sufficient ground rules weren't set at the beginning over how to balance multiple stakeholder interests (DC residents "versus" assets such as Eastern Market) and broader concerns that I usually term citywide interests, plus the problem that generally occurs because I believe that city planning processes encourage people to consider "everything" in ways that too often don't make sense. I.e., you can't make every parcel in the city provide "open space."

And that process mentioned, but inadequately considered the area's civic assets: Eastern Market; Rumsey Natatorium; Southeast branch of the DC Public Library; the Eastern Market Metro plaza and associated green space between 8th and 9th Streets north of Pennsylvania Avenue; the Old Naval Hospital; and two private but civic assets, Friendship House and the Capitol Hill Arts Workshop; not to mention broader planning concerns around connecting Eastern Market and 7th Street to the retail interests on 8th Street (Barracks Row Main Street) and the 600 and 800 blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Last Saturday's Post (as I am back in DC I am slowly working my way through back issues of the paper) had a column by Roger Lewis on this broad issue, "Southeast D.C. Project Asked Too Much of the Private Sector," where he states:

Asking the private sector to plan and carry out the redevelopment of large, publicly owned tracts of land might seem like a good idea, but it can be the wrong idea. Sometimes cities themselves must do the work and shoulder the responsibility for planning new neighborhoods.

I would change the second sentence to this

Cities themselves must do the work and shoulder the responsibility for planning new neighborhoods and new uses for "old" sites, and for the coordination of the use of civic assets and the delivery of public services. (More on this last point in a future blog entry.)

For the most part, it's ridiculous to expect profit-making developers to do anything other than try to maximize their profits. That's fine. It doesn't make developers bad people. Let's just recognize what they do best, and what the planning process is supposed to do simultaneously, provide a planning framework and process that mediates the desires of developers and the needs of the city and citizens in a mutually beneficial manner.

WRT the Lewis article, he goes on to write:

But the boldest element was a very expensive piece of infrastructure: a three-block-long deck spanning Interstate 295 to visually and functionally unite historic Anacostia and a redeveloped Poplar Point. ...

The company's withdrawal illuminates the fallacies of the District's Poplar Point strategy. Given the economic climate, the developer was asked to predict, promise and risk too much. It was unrealistic to demand a visionary program and plan whose feasibility was questionable from the outset and then expect the developer to provide all the financing.

Now the process is back to square one, or perhaps square two -- some previous or ongoing work may prove useful. For example, an environmental impact study, required as a condition for conveying the federal land to the District, is underway and should be completed.

But the city should not conduct another competition. It should prepare and adopt its own framework plan of streets, blocks, civic spaces, parks and key public facilities. This is the kind of plan for the city that Pierre L'Enfant created at the end of the 18th century, and it's a planning tradition that should continue.

Because it establishes the pattern and character of the public realm for generations, an urban framework plan must embody a long-term vision. It must incorporate design criteria and guidelines governing the form of development -- building mass and height, density and streetscape design -- and flexibly accommodate many land uses.

With such a plan, private and public investments can produce projects block by block, street by street, parcel by parcel. Inevitably, market and financial conditions, not preconceived schedules, determine the pace and type of development.

You know the Burnham quote, "make no small plans..."

But the hidden point in what Lewis wrote is important too. In the economic environment that lies before us, it's more likely for smaller projects to be built than larger ones (it will be easier and less risky to raise smaller amounts of money, to lease up smaller projects, etc.), and for "master" projects to build (be built) over longer time periods rather than all at once.

Incremental is the key word here. So incremental planning strategies have to be in place to ensure that out of incremental development comes coordinated quality where the overall urban form that results is greater than the sum of the parts. (Another side of the "complete places" concept that I am developing.)

Having the infrastructure and plans in place, and urban design and transportation demand management guidelines that result from plans in place at the outset as new projects are undertaken will produce better individual projects which in turn contribute better to the overall urban form that is created.

That is the possible silver lining in the economic problems we have now.

The trick is to ensure that the elected officials in the city understand this. For the most part, they don't.

For the most part, DC's elected officials don't see or understand the economic value of quality architecture and urban (rather than suburban) design. For the most part, they espouse the philosophy that any development is good development, and requirements demanding quality are seen as impediments.

Speaking of this view, a design was finally approved for the Apple Store in Georgetown. According to the photo that accompanies the article, the first floor design and window treatment respects the rhythm and style that characterizes traditional (historic) retail architecture.

I was troubled by how DC's Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development had inserted himself into the process after earlier failures of Apple to get their way. Instead, the Deputy Mayor should have said that it is important for retail architecture to respect and complement historic architecture, respecting and extending the vitality of the street experience that is fundamental and foundational to Georgetown's competitive position within the regional retail landscape.

Despite the involvement of the Deputy Mayor, because there is a review process (Old Georgetown Board) in place, using historic preservation and urban design guidelines to make judgements and decisions about the projects that come before them, a better decision was made in the end, rather than caving in to Apple because they are a desired tenant and bad (or less good) development is better than no development.

(This is a case where the Deputy Mayor fails to understand the city's leverage--people want to locate here, even in today's sputtering economy, at least in certain prime locations, and that shouldn't be forgotten. When you have something to sell, something that is in demand, don't underprice, don't leave money on the table because you are so concerned that you won't make the sale.)