Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

"A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic." [Katz, EPA] This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Be careful when you create "temporary park uses" on sites slated for development, because people will end up advocating against development

Photo from the ParkView DC blog.

In 2009, DC demolished the Bruce-Monroe Elementary School, with plans to redevelop the site, at the key intersection of Georgia Avenue and Irving Street, into some sort of mixed use project, mostly housing.

To revitalize in a post-streetcar world, the Georgia Avenue corridor needs more population to enliven the otherwise disinvested retail buildings that line the Avenue.

 While parks are a fine use, they aren't categorically the "highest and best use" everywhere and in every situation, including at key intersections along corridors.

In the interim the then City Councilmember got the city to make over the site into a "temporary" park.

At the time, I was skeptical, because like with how trails advocates tend to be against attempts to revert what were once rails back to transit, such as in Chevy Chase, Maryland vis a vis the Purple Line Light Rail project, years later when the development is ready to move forward, people will instead advocate for the continuation of the park use.

That's been happening with the Bruce-Monroe site for quite awhile.  I wrote about it in 2015, "Predictable outcome: people want to make a temporary park permanent as a foil to development," but it's come up again.

The lessons are obvious.  And it makes you realize why developers leave sites boarded up for long periods, because it's ultimately easier and less problematic than if you offer temporary uses.

This is an email from the Columbia_Heights e-list:

Friends, Allies, and Neighbors,

If you are opposed to the deeply flawed and illegal giveaway of public land and the destructive over-development planned for Bruce Monroe Community Park, please consider the following:

----------------
We ask you to make your voice heard. Tell the DC Council that you oppose the destruction of Bruce Monroe Community Park. Tell them that it’s not okay to violate DC zoning laws and give away public land to enrich developers at the expense of our community. Please take 3 minutes before 10/18/18 to email DC Council to save our community. Use this link to send them an email:

DC Council has scheduled a
hearing on 10/22/18. We need you to tell the DC Council that you remain in opposition to the development and that you want them to postpone any decision to extend the Bruce Monroe Disposition agreement until the Court of Appeals makes a decision. The irrevocably-flawed development plan is currently under review by the Court of Appeals because the development plan violates the city’s own zoning rules. We support affordable housing, but with smart development that fulfills the needs of the community.

Where things stand:

Two years ago, neighbors like you fought the plan by testifying in front of the City Council and the Zoning Commission. Despite this large-scale opposition, the Council and the Zoning Commission voted to move the plan forward. Since that time a group of neighbors petitioned the DC Court of Appeals to Review the Zoning Commission order to develop the Bruce Monroe site according to the plans outlined in Zoning Order ZC16-11. They filed a pro se brief in February 2018 by making the following main points:
  • The Zoning Commission’s decision was fatally flawed–it completely disregards the input from community groups and neighbors, and violated the City’s own policy.
  • The proposed buildings are way too big for this community, and the Zoning Commission’s order is inconsistent with the law. 
  • The impacts of the development were never studied, as required by Urban Planning best practices and the law. The development team and city officials declined to consider the impacts on public safety, infrastructure, and other city services and utilities. These failures are a disservice to our community AND to the Public Housing residents whom the project claims to benefit. 
  • The Zoning Commission claims that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts- but how can that be, when they never even studied those impacts!

The developer’s and other’s responses to these indisputable arguments fall well short of explaining away the Zoning Commissions failures. Instead they fall back on their old tired arguments: that the neighbors who want to have a reasonably-sized development that preserves irreplaceable and much needed green space in the city are against affordable housing. As you know, this is a false argument. We support truly affordable housing that fulfills all the needs of all of the members of our community which includes our neighbors and friends at Park Morton. We believe that a smart development plan that actually adheres to the City’s own rules AND takes input from the community– rather than blindly agreeing to developers– is the way to proceed. The DC Council needs to know that letting developers push through their own profit-driven ideas against the wishes of the community is not okay!

Our case is strong, and it is our hope that the City Council knows this too. The issue of the Bruce Monroe site will come before them again in a few weeks as they have to make a decision on whether to extend the Bruce Monroe Disposition agreement. Please use this link to make your voice heard!

Thank you for your help.
The neighbors of Bruce Monroe Community Park
Thank you,
David Bobeck
700 Block Irving
Friends of Bruce Monroe Park

Our Appeals Court Brief Opposing the Destruction of Bruce Monroe Park
Our Reply Brief to the Developers and the Zoning Commission
Our Joint Appendix (all the documents referred to in the briefs)

Labels: , , , , , ,

1 Comments:

At 6:28 PM, Blogger Richard Layman said...

Nigel from NZ writes:

Your latest blog entry refers .

1 If a city is going to create a temporary park from a vacant lot, they should make sure that it is signposted, and says so in plain language . Even if it is something like

" Welcome to Layman temporary park . We hope that you enjoy this temporary facility until such time that it is ready for future development here

Part of the Civic centre redevelopment in Wellington a number of years ago had what appeared to be a park. It was well utilised for such a small space (approx 50 ft x 50 ft ) Unknown to the public, this was going to be part of a civic building. There was a huge uproar when the public discovered that Jack Ilott Green was only a temporary space, but there was no sign at the site informing people that the area had been pegged for development

2 If the temporary park is popular, and heavily used, does this not say something?

Perhaps the city has under estimated the value of parks, or has provided inadequate number, in order to get in as much money earning facilities as possible (ie development)?

How well does the city connect with its citizens, or is it just interested in getting as many commercial businesses as possible?

While I think temporary parks are a great idea (and better than vacant lots) the public need to be better informed, so they cannot come to wrong conclusions about any plot of land and start litigation matters.

====
as always you raise great points. First, I guess the original proposal was for a charter school. DC has plenty of schools. So I'd say the original proposal was ill-suited. Plus it was supposed to be used for housing as part of the redevelopment of a nearby public housing development.

I'd say you can incorporate some park space, but you don't need a big block's worth, and for the revitalization of the Georgia Ave. corridor, you need as much housing as can possibly be added (except nicely designed, much is not designed well), because the old corridor style of development doesn't work in the car-centric world.

WRT usage, it's not like it's Central Park or the pedestrian sections of Times Square. People use it. And that's great. But it's not mobbed.

2. Related example from our region is Silver Spring. What is now the Civic Plaza in front of the Civic Building was originally the "Silver Spring Green" covered in astroturf, and people loved it, and complained when it was going.

But the plaza serves the same function, and the site has a building and a kind of amphitheatre structure used for an ice rink in winter.

We had the same issue with the Hine development by Eastern Market. The city planners don't typically start out with some constraints, they say "what do you want/" Of course, everyone says "parks" because they'd prefer the least development as possible.

But parks aren't the right response to every site, every piece of land. Especially in the case of Hine, across the street from a Metrorail Station.

Similarly, that's the wrong block (Irving and Georgia) to have a full block park. It's somewhat disconnected within the corridor, somewhat distant from Howard U, distant from the Metrorail at New Hampshire Ave.

The success of the playground communicates the need for more of those kinds of spaces and no reason why one can't be part of the redevelopment.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home