Redevelopment of the Hine School site on Capitol Hill, across from the Eastern Market Metro Station

The public school deaccession program in DC has led to a number of school sites being put out for bid for redevelopment. The Hine School is a well-located eyesore across the street from the Eastern Market Metro Station. The parking lot is also used for flea market activities for Eastern Market.

It's a well located site that if redeveloped, can strengthen the overall commercial district on 8th Street SE (Barracks Row) and on Pennsylvania Avenue SE, the streetscape and design of the area, the Eastern Market and its allied commercial district on 7th Street SE, and add housing across the street from the subway station. And more residents help activate the neighborhood and provide more customers for local businesses helping the businesses to thrive and broadening the potential of the retail mix. Plus they generate property, income and sales tax revenues for the city government.

Greater Greater Washington has a post on the subject, with links to the various plans on the DC Government website. See "Compare the Hine redevelopment proposals."

I didn't comment, nor did I write a blog entry about it, because I sit on what passes for a board of directors for Eastern Market, and there are some complicated issues.

(I attended the presentation a couple weeks ago, and there will be another presentation, that Eastern Market will likely co-sponsor. And two of the four groups are displaying their proposal in front of buildings on 7th Street SE and lobbying-advocating for their proposals. Neighborhood groups are being lobbied or weighing in as well. And there are even ads in local newspapers like the Hill Rag and Voice of the Hill.)

Displaying the Stanton Development-Eastbanc proposal for Hine School on the Saturday Festival Day for the grand reopening of Eastern Market last Saturday.

For example, while it is fair to say that I could never be considered a proponent for parking, it is reasonable to consider developing the associated underground parking in the redevelopment of the site, but in a shared parking scenario, so that it also supports the broader commercial district, as well as Eastern Market.

As I have recounted here, the Eastern Market merchants are vociferous in demanding parking (this makes "sense" as most don't live in the city and they drive here so they interpret the world in terms of automobility). In a special task force on Eastern Market/Capitol Hill parking issues that met last year, I kept arguing for the creation of a "transportation management district" to manage parking, but not just parking, also transit, as well as other mobility improvements. That idea didn't go too far. Most of the other participants couldn't get their heads around the concept.

And for a couple years I have been arguing for a shared delivery system for Eastern Market--I'd rather one panel truck make 15 deliveries than have 15 cars drive to the market--but not just vehicle-based delivery, even considering bike rental type options--and for parking wayfinding systems to better direct people to the parking that exists but is underutilized.

This is an issue because there are three different types of retail groupings, and each has a different trade area and customer base (although there is some intersection), and many of the people in certain trade areas are likely to want to drive.

Anyway, of the four proposals, I thought one was not relevant to these kinds of issues, the National Leadership Campus proposal, although I'd be fine with them building it elsewhere, perhaps as part of some of the land across Harewood from Catholic University, on part of the Armed Forces Retirement Home property (especially with the addition of transit there), or next to a subway station such as Fort Totten.

The other three were basically good to excellent, but if any of the three were chosen, eventually the end project will be fine. I liked the Stanton-Eastbanc proposal the best, but thought that the DFS proposal, in part because it includes Street Sense, the retail consultancy, was still quite good. The third proposal, 7 Penn partners was ok. Their presentation wasn't that good, but they could still pull it out in the end.

While I am not on Capitol Hill e-lists, some of the discussion was sent to me, and it sparked a thread of private e-discussion. The comment started by saying the Stanton proposal was the best, because the other proposals didn't provide enough parking.

So this is what I wrote:

While perhaps for different reasons I think the Stanton/Eastbanc project is superior, it is a mistake to ding the other projects vying for the land strictly on the basis of parking. A residential building located ON TOP OF A METRO STATION DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME DEMAND FOR PARKING AND AUTOMOBILITY compared to a similar building located far away from such transit service.

Frankly, I'd consider making the building 0% resident parking except for a phalanx of shared cars IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PEOPLE WHO WANT CARLESS LIVING. If you're worried about people driving, think out of the box and build housing for people who don't want automobile-centric housing. This would allow them to pay less for housing anyway.

And, because the site is at a Metro station, I'd rather have it be a little denser, with more population (therefore more housing units) in order to better leverage the billions of dollars invested in the subway system, and because more population can be accommodated in a manner that generates comparably fewer automobile trips compared to other locations.

DC hasn't adequately studied parking issues in the city. There are cases of buildings in northwest DC where upwards of 80% of residents do not own cars. Similarly, Seattle, in a very thorough study of parking issues found that as the size of multiunit buildings increased, the number of cars per capita and per unit dropped. In what Seattle defines as urban centers within the city and in transit station areas, there are no minimum parking requirements at all, because the policy is to promote transit.

I will try to track down some data on multiunit buildings in the Wilson Blvd. corridor in Arlington, where transportation demand management practices work to limit automobility as the primary transportation mode.

And this led to some back and forth, but mostly car-centric discussion, which is somewhat insidious because typical DC residents are often incapable of recognizing and acknowledging how much they are imprinted by automobility/automobile-centricity and a land use paradigm that is focused on deconcentrated and disconnected land use (what we call "suburban").

I won't list the back and forth, but Michael wrote this as part of the thread, and it is worth repeating as it is succinct and well-thought out. The sections denoted by > are the comments that Michael is responding to specifically:

> but we can't GUARANTEE that the people who move in won't have cars

True. But you could guarantee that they don’t get permits to park them on the street, by defining a parking district that takes in only the curbs immediately adjacent to the Hines site, which should consist of metered parking spaces and loading zones only. People who move in, who own cars, can rent parking from private providers.

> The transit offerings in the metro DC area are, by comparison, very limited, and after living in London I would never consider transit as a way of life HERE..

As long as free parking is mandatory, transit options will be inadequate. Most people won’t take transit if they can park for free. And most builders, for economic reasons, will reduce development densities and put required parking on the surface, making transit even less viable. No realistic level of subsidy can make transit work in a low-density, ample free parking environment.

> In other words, trying to force what you call "transit as a way of life" on the NEW residents is one thing, but forcing it on the CURRENT residents is another.

Non-drivers, and would-be non-drivers, have had driving as a way of life forced on them for decades, as the driving majority has voted for free parking, and redesigned our communities in a way that makes life without a car nearly impossible. The parking subsidy is not a trivial one – a typical parking space costs as much as a typical car.

We subsidize transit and nonmotorized modes because they are less environmentally harmful than driving. But given the negative environmental consequences of driving, we should certainly not force the carless to pay for free parking for motorists.

> But if there's limited parking to start with, the risk is high that the current residents will be penalized for this lack of planning in the development.

Drivers who park on the street, as I do, are enjoying a major benefit at public expense (local streets are not paid for by gasoline taxes or vehicle fees). A “tragedy of the commons” often ensues, as cheap or free street parking provides an incentive for residents to own more vehicles than there are available parking spaces.

The most efficient and environmentally sound solution would be to abolish free public parking altogether. Parking permit fees and meter rates should be raised to a market-clearing level, with the proceeds earmarked for neighborhood improvements and services rather than disappearing into the general fund, so the neighborhood as a whole doesn’t suffer.

Given that most communities waste colossal amounts of money on excess and duplicative parking, and parking for which market demand is not sufficient to cover costs, any community which stops subsidizing parking can expect to generate substantial new development and increases in property value. Housing units built without parking cost 20-30% less to build than units built with parking. Similar calculations apply to commercial space.

To promote this, a "pedestrian and community paradise," you have to focus on all the development policies that currently exist which promote automobility at the expense of complete places. You have to know that this type of discussion makes up the majority of what I write in the blog.

Eastern Market reopening, with a closed to traffic 7th Street SE, Saturday June 27th, 2009.