McMillan Site: Has Anything Happened in the Last Seven Months?
I try to keep up with my McMillan site news. But if I blogged about every twist regarding D.C.'s most famous, non-functioning water filtration system, the topic would be all-consuming.
If you're new to the McMillan controversy, here's a quickie review: The McMillan site is a 25-acre parcel of land located just west of North Capitol Street near Bloomingdale and Brookland. (See map below.)
Nearly a year ago (Dec. 2008), a team of developers led by EYA unveiled plans for a mixed-use community with housing, office, retail, and a few of those old towers—"silos" is the proper terminology—remaining at the site.*
Since then, a vocal group of neighbors has protested the lack of green space and general dearth of information coming from EYA about the land's value, studies on traffic and transportation concerns, and storm drainage issues.
EYA hasn't held a major meeting since February. (See "Saturday’s McMillan Meeting, All Hell Breaks Loose" for some more details on the tone of that gathering.)
But back in late September, Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas hosted a meeting with EYA and some of the consultants hired to study the site. Attendees found it less than enlightening, according to ANC Commissioner John Salatti.
"The councilmember seemed to go out of his way to say there’s no plan," says Salatti. The meeting, billed as "a status report," was anything but: "They were there to take questions and write down community concerns, " says Salatti. "You’re saying there’s no plan. There’s no concrete information. What are we doing here?"
Salatti says he's seen no environmental impact studies, but that EYA representative Aakash Thakkar said that the development team would like to submit a PUD plan to the Zoning Commission in mid 2010.
I just bring all this up, because there's another McMillan meeting tonight...but this blog post has gone on for so long, I'll just post about that in the next one.
*Some might say the first meeting was held during the previous Spring, when community members reviewed very general, un-detailed initial plans of the development.
11:12 am
Once again...Commissioner Salatti loves to stir up controversy where it doesn't exist. EYA was selected via a public process. Several developers submitted proposals, EYA's was accepted to work on McMillan. Now Mr. Salatti, because he is not a member of the citizen's advisory group has join the minority of residents who prefer to see no development on this site. These parties believe that McMillan is a park....it is an abandoned industrial site...not a park. No residents have walked on that site for over 100 hundred years. Just because it is covered over by grass doesn't make it a green space. Residents in the area of the site overwhelming want to see some multi use development on the site. But Commissioner Salatti along with the OurMcMillan group are introducing false, incorrect, misleading and economically unfeasible information to the public. It's awful that for people personal political aspirations that the public is again going to end up with nothing on this site due to the crazy notions put in the public domain. Shameful...
8:27 pm
Response to "The Commiss" you should state your full name commissioner so the public will know who you are.
EYA was not selected by the city to develope the site and it was not a public process.
the McMillan site was never an industrial site. It was a water filteration site/park. It was designated a park by Willam Taft and it was designate a park by the US Congress. It was also designated to be used as a park/open space in the Comprehensive Plan for the last 30 years. The Plan was amendement to include mix use development including park/open space.
Residents have walked on the site and the Bloomingdale civic Association had picnics on the site in the 1980's.
12:36 pm
Oh please. Mr. Norman...VMP was selected as the Master Developer...let's not try and attempt to confuse the public as you would like to advance your agenda. McMillan is an industrial site, last time I checked a water filteration plant is considered and industry and as such the site is industrial in purpose. Calling it a park because Mr. Taft thought it would look pretty if it had grass on top of it is a stretch by any means. If congress is calling it a prak they need to look that one up in a Webster's, it's an industrial site with grass on top of it! Get a grip! As for the DC Comp Plan it does show it as a Mutli-Use site, and DC didn't even own the site 30 years ago. Stop with the mis-information, we all know you are pushing your own agenda!
BTW it's Commissioner Daneker for the public!
10:58 am
Commissioner Daneker, you are well aware that there was no open selection process regarding EYA. An initial agreement with the City to deliver specific services has morphed into the assumed role of "Master Developer" -- a role offering enormous potential profits. It is no mystery that EYA would facilitate that illusion.
McMillan is NOT an abandoned parking lot. Numerous locations on the Rhode Island and Georgia Avenue corridors are in need of in-fill projects. Let those projects be built in those commercial zones.
McMillan is a one-of-a-kind architectural and technological wonder. It is a Public Health Landmark, responsible for virtually eradicating water-borne illnesses from the District. It is located in an area pathetically devoid of community amenities -- and smack in the center of numerous large-scale development projects. It is the ONE PLACE in our area that could provide outdoor recreation and gathering space for the neighboring communities.
We have an opportunity to create a DESTINATION, unique to DC, serving the neighborhoods, enhancing the economy, providing a legacy.
12:51 pm
Dont cry before youre hurt.
3:41 pm
The developistas (those who consider most spaces barren of profit-generating structures as wasteful) are the ones who should have to justify their position, not the so-called minority (when was that vote held, exactly?) of "crazy" people who want the site to stay undeveloped.
Getting a lot of loud, influential people on your side does not constitute "overwhelming" support. And when someone uses misleading information in an attempt to dispel the other side's "misleading information", that tells us how weak and insubstantial his arguments are.
No matter what Commissioner Danneker sees when he looks at it (based on his statement, only from a distance), McMillan IS a historical landmark - and has been for at least 20 years.
We are only STEWARDS of these. They are not meant to be consumed - or even utilized - by just a few generations. If we cannot afford to make them safe for the public to use as parks, recreational sites, museums, or educational purposes in our own lifetimes, we are obliged to leave them alone.
In years to come, when we're in the full throes of the global water crisis which is now imminent, this move will be seen exactly for what it was: post real-estate boom vasocongestion (to use the medical term).
Instead of coming up with a carefully thought out, environmentally conscious, wholesome historical monument to the water (and other natural resources) we once had - and wasted on precisely this type of gratuitous, unsustainable, decadent development - we are engaging in a last ditch attempt to squeeze out one more drop of profit using an obsolete formula that, a few years ago, made a few people really rich, really fast.
DC doesn't need any more mixed-used developments. We cannot find well-heeled-enough tenants for the ones we already have. And taxpayers cannot afford any more public-private partnerships. Why should we take on a big risk for a tiny gain (which never pays off as advertised anyway) just so investors can take on a smaller risk while aiming for a big gain?
Okay, for argument's sake, let's say it's true that businesses can't succeed without taxpayer support. If that's the case, shouldn't we re-evaluate the validity of such an unhealthy economic system before we go broke trying to prop it up?
People WILL pay for a place to stay undeveloped ... they're just not the SAME people. This is especially true for unique sites, and McMillan is nothing if not unique.
DC, especially this part of DC, DOES need a green, peaceful spot with a fabulous view and cool breezes. It needs an atypical destination, somewhere people - residents and visitors - can meet outside to socialize, can stage family photos against a natural backdrop that couldn't be anywhere but DC (and not tourist DC, but OUR DC).
It needs a place where smaller groups who can't afford the Mall can stage events - say, a rennaissance faire, a neighborhood arts show, or a community festival. If it appeals to bigger, richer groups who simply want a place that is fresh and unusual but also has CHARACTER, that's fine too. It needs a way to educate the public - young, old and in-between - about water and water treatment ... and its history. This will become more and more important in the decades to come as the world squabbles over water (especially potable water).
If we had a place like this, economic growth would occur around it naturally and gradually. Instead of a few people profiting over a relatively short time, a lot of people would benefit economically over a longer period. The value of their homes would increase, small retail sections would blossom, and the value of their homes would increase more. The area would become known as a good place in which to grow up, to live, to invest, to go to school, to retire.
We do NOT need yet another generic development like we see throughout every other US city. I'm betting many people voiced initial support for this project only because they want McMillan made accessible to them, and this is the only option they were offered.
Most people aren't going to fight what they perceive as a "done deal", and if I'm not mistaken, the first proposal for developing McMillan was an unsolicited piece former Council member Vincent Orange submitted without ever considering an alternative.
If anything screams "personal agenda", it's stuff like that ... NOT fighting for something that's good for everyone, those of us who are alive and those yet to be born. Ultimately, this site belongs to the future - not to the relatively few living individuals who have found (or, if we unite and manage to prevail, only THINK they've found) a sure-fire formula for profit during a development-enraptured age.
5:23 pm
There's a scene in Braveheart where William Wallace asks the Scottish elite whether they would at least like to barter for a better deal.
The Bethesda-based developer, EYA, was pre-selected by DC's corrupt Office of Planning and Economic Development. There was no competitive process where developers presented ideas and bids. Instead, there was some dance where development teams were asked to submit notional ideas. Not surprisingly, the developer that gave the most in campaign contributions to Harry Thomas and Barrie Daneker were given exclusive rights to develop this public space, with no need for specifics, and certainly no mention of what the costs would be.
No one knows how many low-income tenement buildings will be included when the Council finally weighs in during the transfer of this public space to the Maryland developer. No one knows how many check cashing stores will take up residence. No one knows whether the neighborhood will have a Safeway or a Murrays. None of this matters to the Bethesda-based developer. They are counting on the City to transfer the land to them so they can re-sell it to whomever they like.
I don't blame the developer for holding "listening sessions" where Stronghold and Bloomingdale residents were told to hold their questions while listening to all the BS from the developers. But, I am amazed that Daneker and Harry Thomas, without anyone knowing what the final plan will look like, are already in strong support of whatever the Bethesda-based developer wants to do.
We've seen the developers plan, with virtually no contiguous park space and massive high-rise office building and low-income tenement buildings. If you live in Stronghold, you should take a picture of the sunsets you see now, because that sky will be gone if Harry Thomas and Barrie Daneker have their way with this public property. As our elected representatives, should they be demanding a better deal on our behalf?