Drill, Baby, Drill
- Posted by ryan on January 5th, 2009 filed in Cities
One thing that happens when you take a long break from writing is that you begin to lose your voice. One’s complaints grow too expansive to be properly related, and slowly congeal into a mute rage (or frustration or whatever). Such is the case with my thoughts on the latest turn in the McMillan Sand Filtration Plant redevelopment scheme. You see, there are 25 acres in the very heart of the District occupied by what used to be a filtration plant. It’s kind of neat looking, but it’s fenced off and unusable, and it constitutes a massive void in the grid between Bloomingdale, Columbia Heights, the Washington Hospital Center, and Catholic University.
Now, the city wants to develop it, and is planning to do so in a mixed-use fashion. Of course, some in the community are against this. Many are concerned about parking and traffic, particularly given development plans a bit north at the Armed Forces Retirement Home property. On the one hand, this is kind of silly. At present, the lack of walkable retail options around the property means that nearby residents often have to drive to shop, increasing traffic. A dense, walkable development would allow many more local trips to be taken on foot. On the other hand, they kind of have a point. The area isn’t served by transit (other than buses, and shuttles that stream from Brookland station, contributing to negative views of new development there), and the District government seems uninterested in solving this problem.
That’s all very annoying. But to get to mute rage, I had to see this. Let me quote the little mission statement thingey:
This site is dedicated to saving 25 acres of green space in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. While people who say they care about the environment are outraged about drilling in the northern tundra of Alaska, there seems to be little concern for turning 25 acres of green space in the nation’s capital into concrete and asphalt. Once it is developed it will be lost forever.
This is just remarkable. Obviously, there is no grasp of of the effect of constraints on urban housing supply on suburban and exurban land use — no sense that households unhoused in dense areas will instead despoil more land in greenfield developments. There’s also no sense of irony. The GOP wants to drill in Alaska to unearth oil, needed to fuel automobiles, needed to maintain a drivable way of life, because there are insufficient quantities of dense, walkable, urban developments in this country, such as that proposed for the McMillan site. Sigh.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The documentation on Washington’s ur-example of this phenomenon, the opposition to the Purple Line, has been updated here.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
If you look at his survey, 70% of people voted for the sarcastic, “Let corporations turn it into concrete” option.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Your rage doesn’t seem mute. A little hoarse, maybe.
Isn’t all of DC a(n insufficiently) drained swamp?
January 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
You’re totally right, Patrick. I laughed out loud when I read the option:
“Allow pre-selected private corporations to maximize their profits by maximizing square footage and turning as much of this green space into concrete and asphalt as possible.”
He ought to have thrown in some dead kittens for good measure.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:55 am
This is where the “green” movement seems to fail. When saving green space becomes more important than increasing density/infill and avoiding sprawl then the “green” movement is failing all of us.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:25 am
The problem I have with development of both the McMillan site and now the Old Soldiers Home is that this area — stretching from the Cemetery down to the reservoir is Washington’s great historic open space. It was the community gathering point, a connected series of water features and landscaped grounds and open fields. This was our Central Park. Whatever you say say about Rock Creek Park — it’s basically just a forest preserve. And isn’t the kind of community gathering spot that this stretch of parks was. We’ve allowed these areas over time to be cordoned off from the public — spiked fences around the Soldier’s Home. Gates closed at the cemetery. I imagine, like many reservoirs, like the ones in Charlottesville and Albemarle County that are used for crew and swimming, these reservoirs were also open to pleasure boaters at one time. I imagine like Oakland, California’s wonderful Lake Merrit or the lakes in Minneapolis these water features could be filled with self-propelled paddle boats and gondolas. So while I don’t have a problem with increasing density in most parts of DC or even increasing density near these locations, I just think that we should be looking at ways to return these formerly public parks back to the public. Perhaps the ruins of the filtration plant should remain ruins. But ones that you could actually walk through with some level of interpretation. Park View should once again connect to the Park that it took its name from. And that great body of water near Howard should be rimmed by jogging trails and home to water craft. The National Mall is a failure mostly because it’s too far from where many people live. Cut off from downtown by the wall of the Federal Triangle. But here, in the heart of our city, is the remnants of our greatest public space. So sad to see that go.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I think Christopher has a point.
It’s not enough to state that it’s environmentally sound to promote density on an inner city location. If it were, than you’d similarly have to support mixed use development of Central Park.
Of course that would be a tragedy. And you can still make an environmental case for Central Park that is more nuanced than just “save the green stuff in front of me while ignoring the green stuff out in the burbs.” The argument would go: Increased density is good for the environment; to get increased density you need to convince people to live in denser neighborhoods; people like green space like Central Park; you need to set aside enough green space in dense neighborhoods to attract enough people to increase the overall density.
I’m not sure what that ratio is, but every square foot of Central Park probably makes several hundred if not thousands of square feet of “concrete” much more liveable.
That’s not to say no development of these sites is appropriate, but some well-planned and adequate open space is necessary for desirable urban living.
Of course, in the past you’ve said just as much. So I doubt you’ll disagree with much of the above.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Reid,
There’s always a trade-off between density and greenspace. The problem with most NIMBYs is that they’ll call anything ‘open space’ and say it’s worthy of preservation no matter its actual value or usefulness as green space.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
It’s one thing to argue for coherent green spaces, and quite another to argue reflexively against infill and increased density. I’d gladly take a 25 acre park at McMillan if it meant that NIMBYs would quit fighting to reduce densities elsewhere, particularly around transit.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I agree with both of you. And I think I missed it in your original post that 25 acres will be saved.
It is a balance. I know you all understand that, but I was just making the point that the rhetoric needs to acknowledge that balance too.