You are on page 1of 25

The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington DC Matthew Steenhoek 2011-05-09

Southwest was going to change the world.

The ambitions of the planners and real estate men who set out in the mid-twentieth century to remake Southwest, DC into a model city, unmatched in form or in concept, were grand and of bold intention. However, it was not meant to be. The urban renewal effort in Southwest ended up being something of a boogey-man story that urban planners, social activists, and city leaders tell to their children at night. Stories of local streets to nowhere, major highways that scar the urban fabric, lifeless street-levels on high-rise buildings, brutal concrete architecture, and lonely, monotonous sidewalks serve as a lesson of what can happen when planners decide to design from an airplane instead of focusing on the pedestrian experience. As the memories of this process begin to fade into the collective fog, a new and growing interest in reconsidering and reconstructing much of Southwest has been gaining steam over the past decade. Four planning and development projects typify this recent resurgence. First is the demolition and reconstruction of the Waterside Mall. This development demonstrates that suburban typologies have no place in the vibrant urban fabric. It is an example that illustrates the importance of connectivity and porosity in the urban fabric through the reconnection of 4 th St SW. Next is the renovation of the Arena Stage which is illustrative of how fresh new ideas can breathe life into older structures. The Arena Stage experience is evidence of the power of cultural institutions to be a driving force in an urban renaissance. Third is the planned redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront. In a city with miles upon miles of shoreline but no real waterfront community, the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront highlights how natural amenities, which were neglected in the past, can be revisited and recognized as drivers

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 1

of significant investment and redevelopment. Finally, the planning of the Southwest Eco-District along LEnfant Promenade shows how modern building systems and a renewed focus on the pedestrian experience can provide a framework for revitalization and sustainability. Taken together, these four projects, each in a different state of planning, design, or completion, demonstrate the various methods by which the sins of urban renewal can be absolved. All four of these projects involve significant government intervention, with both local and federal influence and funding instrumental in all. Despite being located on The Island, these projects are also the product of the larger political, social, spatial, and conceptual framework within which they were conceived. When viewed through this lens, these four projects offer a reflection on the development environment in not only Southwest but also elsewhere in the District of Columbia and around the United States.

A History of Renewal Long known as The Island, the Southwest, the smallest quadrant in DC, has a history of being isolated from the rest of the city. At first it was the Washington Canal, which ran where Constitution Avenue currently sits, and separated SW from the northern portions of the District. Then in the 1870s, the construction of railroad tracks along Maryland Avenue created a new barrier. Finally, as almost insult to injury, the Southeast/Southwest Freeway cut the SW quadrant off from the rest of the city in the 1960s (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). This isolation created a dynamic in Southwest that permeates today, as residents and visitors of the city are again beginning to discover Southwest DC. Having roots back to 1790, when it was established as a military outpost, and being completely uprooted and reestablished in the 1950s 1970s through Urban Renewal, Southwest DC is simultaneously one of the oldest and newest communities in DC. After the Civil War, the Southwest was settled by both African Americans and European immigrants of Italian, German, Irish, and Eastern European Jewish heritage, all of whom lived in coexistence-Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 2

not integration. The African Americans largely inhabited alley dwellings on the east side of Fourth Street SW while the European immigrants lived on the west side of the street. Fourth Street became a main commercial hub of Southwest; and while blacks and whites shopped there it also stood as a dividing line between the two groups (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). This line, while perhaps not as stark as it once was, seems to largely hold true today as all of the public housing, and place-based Section-8 housing in Southwest is located between Fourth Street and South Capitol Street. Over time the populations in Southwest shifted, and a majority African American population remained. This was a stable community, with most residents living in the community for more than ten years; but the physical fabric of the neighborhood began to degrade (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). Sitting in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol, the neighborhood was determined to be a slum and the shame of the nation. It was slated for razing as early as the 1920s and 1930s by the Alley Dwelling Authority and later by the National Capital Housing Authority (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). Ultimately, Southwest became the site of the first urban renewal effort in DC. It was one of the first efforts in the United States and, to this date, the citys only full-scale attempt to revitalize an entire neighborhood through urban renewal. The urban renewal era began when, in 1945, the Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) began to acquire property that the National Capital Park and Planning Commission designated for redevelopment. It was further cemented in the 1954 case of Berman v. Parker when the Supreme Court upheld eminent domain and the right of the RLA to condemn, in the public interest, land occupied by miserable and disreputable housing. This process resulted in the demolition of 4,800 structures and the displacement of 23,000 residents and 1,500 businesses (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). Southwest emerged from this renewal as the only cohesive collection of Great Society (or Brutalist, depending on your architectural predispositions) Architecture in Washington DC. Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 3

Waterside Mall Responding to the growing public concerns about environmental pollution and safety that developed in the in the 1960s and to a generation that saw the Cuyahoga River on fire and read the foreboding predictions of Rachel Carsons Silent Spring, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed on December 2, 1970 (Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). While this new agency did not receive significant press or much fanfare at the time of its creation, the EPA did represent a strong step forward in the realm of environmental legislation. Previously the federal government had only dabbled with legislation of this manner with some air pollution legislation in 1955 and water pollution legislation in 1948. Taking an aggressive step forward, then-President Nixon called for the creation of a strong, independent agencyto make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food (Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). Initially the EPA cobbled together space around Washington to conduct the business of setting up a new agency. These various offices represented a high level of inefficiency and duplicity, each operating as a mini-EPA with their own regulatory, congressional, and public affairs staff and a significant amount of autonomy (Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). EPA staff was not forced to endure these working conditions for long; and as staff continued to grow, placing further strain on the decentralized office spaces, the EPA moved into the still-unfinished Waterside Mall complex in Southwest, DC in 1971. Originally conceived as a progressive and forward-thinking element of the urban renewal scheme in Southwest, the Waterside Mall was a suburban style mall structure that included a number of retails stores with offices and apartments a classic mix of uses. In order to provide a footprint large enough to accommodate the Waterside Mall, originally called The Town Center, a portion of 4th Street SW had to be closed - which created a superblock bounded by 3rd, 6th, M, & Eye Streets SW (Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc.). The Southwest Freeway and a Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 4

grouping of railroad tracks limit the opportunities for connections to Southwest from points to the north. The closure of 4th Street SW further constricted the permeability of the street-grid in Southwest by terminating yet another north-south route. As the EPA continued to expand, the working population of the EPA headquarters at Waterside Mall ballooned to 3,700 employees by the late 1980s. This number represented a quadrupling in size from the early 1970s when the EPA first moved to Waterside Mall, and the EPA again began taking on additional satellite locations to accommodate the growth (Steinman, 1993). Part of this growth and expansion process involved the renovation of the EPA Waterside Mall facility. In accordance with the progressive designs for energy efficiency and best building practices that were prevalent in the early 1970s when Waterside Mall was constructed, the EPA headquarters had a sealed building envelope which allowed for virtually no outside air to naturally enter the building. Instead, the building relied heavily on mechanical HVAC systems to circulate fresh air and remove stale air (Steinman, 1993). Falling victim to its own success, the tightly-sealed EPA headquarters became the poster child for Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) when the 1987 renovations began to cause employees to report burning eyes, headaches, or other symptoms (Smith, 2006). The EPA defines SBS as the experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified. By 1989, somewhere between 24% and 40% of EPA workers# suffered from sick buildingrelated symptoms (Steinman, 1993). The irony of the federal agency that is tasked with regulating indoor air quality falling victim to pervasive SBS in their own headquarters should not be understated. In 1993, under President Clintons administration, the winds of federal agency consolidation again began to blow. In December of that year, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that the EPA would consolidate its more than ten locations in the DC region to the Ronald Reagan Building in the Federal Triangle area of downtown DC , which had been placed under construction a couple of years earlier. This consolidation meant Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 5

that about 6,800 employees located in the Federal Triangle by 2001 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). EPA employees first began to move into the new headquarters space in 1994, but it was not until July of 1997 that EPA workers began to move out of the Waterside Mall. With a lease that did not terminate until 2002, the EPA slowly shifted all 3,800 of its employees to the Reagan Building. The exodus of the EPA from Southwest meant the failure of the majority of the three-dozen businesses in the Waterfront Mall, most of which had built their ventures around the daytime traffic provided by EPA workers. The EPAs decision to not renew their lease also prompted the buildings owners, Bresler & Reiner, who originally built the mall in the 1960s, to search for redevelopment options (White & Chamis, 2001). Initial redevelopment plans for Waterside Mall were fairly unambitious in scope. They called for the remodeling of the existing office space and the addition of a one-story level to the existing mall structure. Originally, the growth along M Street SE by the Naval Sea Systems Command relocation at the Navy Yard was seen as the driver for the enhanced office demand (White & Chamis, 2001). This scenario would have allowed the building owners to continue on with the existing lease terms on the property. The Waterside Mall site was owned by the Redevelopment Land Agency Revitalization Corporation (RLARC), a subsidiary of the National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC). Bresler & Reiner, the original owners of the Waterside Mall building, had 54 years left on a long-term ground lease with a below-market rent of $125,000 per annum (Hedgpeth, 2007). The owners found that the limited remaining term on the lease made financing a challenge and pursued a new approach for the development. Eventually a deal was struck with NCRC whereby Waterfront Associates (a development group which included Bresler & Reiner) would become the owner of the majority of the site and RLARC / NCRC would own the northeast corner of the site; they then would be freed up to develop a residential building on the site (Tregoning, 2007). Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 6

With new site control and a better financing position, Waterfront Associates again reconsidered the development options for the site. Created by the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process was a seven-building, two-million square foot, single-tenant office development which included the renovation of the two EPA office towers designed by I.M. Pei. As part of the approval and negotiations process, the developers agreed to reopen Fourth Street SW from M Street to I Street. This connection represented an important link in the severed street grid, and the city agreed to pay for its construction and for development rights that were forfeited by the developer as a result of the Fourth Street connection (Tregoning, 2007). Fannie Mae was the tenant identified by Waterfront Associates to fill the Waterside Mall redevelopment. Slated to relocate from their campus in upper Northwest, Fannie Mae decided to reverse their plans in January 2005 in order to save money and raise capital, after being accused by regulators of accounting irregularities (Hedgpeth, 2005). This change left a void in the redevelopment project, and Waterfront Associates again had to reconsider their plans for the Waterside Mall complex. Finally, in December of 2006, Mayor Anthony Williams announced that the DC government would step in to help fill part of the vacuum that Fannie Mae had left almost two years earlier. The District government agreed to lease 500,000 square feet in two new buildings for 15 years (Lazo, 2007). This served as an opportunity for DC to consolidate offices and to open up space in other parts of the city that were already seeing private development interest. The decision to relocate the Department of Consumer and Regulatory affairs from an office building in the already-burgeoning NoMa submarket in Northeast DC is indicative of DCs approach. By doing this, the District government helped to stimulate private office development and investment in markets outside of the traditional downtown. With a new anchor tenant secured, Waterfront Associates revisited the PUD process and was approved to build a mixed-use project. The Waterside Mall redevelopment includes Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 7

ground floor retail and grocery store, office uses along M Street, the residential redevelopment of the I.M. Pei towers, provisions for significant affordable or workforce housing for households making between 50% and 120% AMI , LEED Silver construction, and a reconnected Fourth Street (Natarajan, 2006). To date, the two office towers leased by the District government have opened, as have the renovated grocery store and the majority of the other ground floor retail. The trials and tribulations of the Waterside Mall redevelopment show how public-private investments can grow and develop over time. The Districts relationship to the project grew from being the controller of a long-term ground lease to one where they allowed zoning modifications through the PUD process, paid for the construction of Fourth Street, sold off the majority of their fee simple property holdings, and ultimately saved the project by taking a 15year lease on a half million square feet of office space. By having the flexibility to work with changing economic circumstances, the District government showed leadership in supporting private investment, thereby creating a successful project, leveraging significant public amenity through the opening of Fourth Street, and providing affordable workforce housing. The Waterside Mall redevelopment also shows how the suburban land-use patterns that were typical in urban renewal planning can be capitalized on to create innovative pad development sites and opportunities for adaptive reuse where appropriate. Additionally, the history of the Waterside Mall shows how the action of the Federal government in creating, disbanding, or consolidating agencies can play out on the neighborhoods of Washington, DC.

Arena Stage For the past fifty years, the Arena Stage has been a cultural landmark and institution in Southwest. In the late 1950s, the Arena Stage commissioned Harry Weese to design a theatre to its specifications. Weese, the famed architect of the Washington Metro system, designed for Arena Stage the first in the round permanent theatre to be built in North America. This theatre, which opened in 1961, was originally known as the Arena Stage and is now called Fichandler Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 8

Stage, named after the founder of Arena Stage. Later, Weese designed the Kreeger Theatre which opened in 1971. Both are included on the list of historic structures in DC (Thom, 2010). Like much of the Southwest quadrant, the Arena Stage suffered from its brutal urban renewal surroundings. This began to turn around when, in the late 1990s, Molly Smith, Arenas Artistic Director, began to reconsider the legacy of Arena Stage and brought on Bing Thom Architects (BTA) to redesign the facility. BTA came on board in 2000 and was faced with the challenge of maintaining the original historic structures while improving acoustics, doubling the size of the facilities, and creating a striking architectural form (Thom, 2010). The Arena Stage has been progressive since its inception; it was the first integrated theatre in Washington, DC, the first theatre outside of New York to win a Tony Award, and the first American company to perform at the Hong Kong Arts Festival. It also focuses exclusively on American theatre, most of which has been written in the last 100 years, making Arena Stage an unmistakably modern theatre company. With this heritage, it was only fitting for Arena Stage to push the envelope on the redesign of their theatre complex (Franko, 2010). In order to accomplish this goal, BTA wrapped all of the existing buildings in an undulating glass skin with a soaring cantilevered roof that gestures towards the Washington Monument. The roof is supported by dramatic 45-foot tall heavy timber columns which are uniquely shaped and spaced to reduce their visual weight in the space. In addition to pushing the limits of architectural aesthetics in Washington, this is also the first heavy timber structure to be constructed in the modern city; and it was the first hybrid glass and timber enclosure of its kind in the United States (Thom, 2010). Much of the funding for this architectural feat came from the support of private donors. In 2002, with the new BTA design in hand, the Arena Stage launched a $120 million fundraising project, called The Next Stage Campaign, to support the construction of the planned state-of-the-art theatre campus. The pivotal moment in The Next Stage Campaign came in 2005 when Gilbert and Jaylee Mead told the Arena Stage that, if they could raise $20 million in Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 9

the following year, they would match it dollar-for-dollar. This challenge rejuvenated the campaign; and over the next year, with the Meads donation of $35 million, the Arena Stage exceeded $100 million in funds raised. To honor this gift, the largest ever made to an American regional theatre, the Arena Stage named the new BTA-designed complex the Arena Stage at the Mead Center for American Theatre (Penton Media Inc., 2006). Clearly, the generosity of the Meads and the larger Washington arts community that donated to The Next Stage Campaign was the driving force behind the financing of the theatres reconstruction. However, the government, both federal and local, also played an important role in its funding. On the federal level, there was a Congressional Appropriation of $300,000 to support the design and planning of the Mead Center (Byrd, 2010). This funding stream helped to jump start jumpstart the design and to provide some funding for the earlier stages of the project. The District was involved in two capacities; first, there was $30 million in grants that were issued in 2003 by the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED); and second was $10 million in a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) package that helped to close the gap between donation, grants, and appropriations and the theatres $160 million price tag (Gandhi, 2008). The Districts justification for pledging their support though grants and TIF financing was threefold. First was the development of Arena Stage as an enhanced tourist attraction and new cultural landmark for DC. Sharon Ambrose, the Ward 6 Council member at the time of Arena Stages construction, said that the complex will immediately become a signature piece of waterfront architecture another landmark building for Washington, D.C. that will attract tourists and architecture enthusiasts, as well as theatre patrons (Penton Media Inc., 2006). In this capacity, the District was able to justify their financial support of the theatre through increased tax revenue that would come as a result in the renewed interest in the Arena Stage; and the theatre company would pay off the TIF Note over a 25-year period through pledges, increased ticket prices, and other income during that period (Gandhi, 2008). Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 10

The second reason for District support of the project was the promise of job creation and community engagement. Arena Stage was projected to employ a full-time equivalency of 232 people. Additionally, through spin-off employment and jobs, the Arena Stage was expected to support more than 175 jobs in DC through indirect spending by theatre employees and patrons. Further, Arena Stage has outreach programs which serve over 20,000 youth between the ages of 12 and 18 in the DC region which introduce them to theatre and to help them develop a love for the theatre arts at an early age (Albert, 2008). These special merits and community benefits must be present in order for the District to justify the utilization of public grants and funding. Finally, the redevelopment of the Arena Stage was seen by the District government as a catalytic project that would help to stimulate further economic development in Southwest. Aligning with this vision of the Arena Stage as a driver of development, the Districts contribution to the Arena Stage helped to enhance the synergistic relationship that the District was helping to build through their funding and involvement with the adjacent Waterside Mall and Southwest Waterfront redevelopments (Gandhi, 2008). By focusing significant efforts on a small area of the city, the District government has been able to positively effect change; and its public investment goes the furthest as a result of the development synergies discussed. The redevelopment of the Arena Stage offers several lessons for successful rejuvenation of a neighborhood in need of stimulation. From an urban design and architecture angle, the Arena Stage highlights the importance of using the positive attributes of the place to inform the design of the redevelopment. The Arena Stages graceful engulfing of the historic Weese theatres and its utilization of the open site area are great examples of how these resources can be leveraged most effectively. It also offers a lesson about how a strong and visionary architectural move can help to distinguish a neighborhood. Southwest, a neighborhood completely rebuilt over a 20-year time frame and fraught with architectural monotony, was poised to benefit greatly from the bold design of Arena Stage. From the Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 11

perspective of local government, the redevelopment of the Arena Stage shows how the government can step in to provide that last-needed push allowing a redevelopment project to crest the threshold of planning feasibility or to close a construction financing gap. It also exemplifies how public investments can be backstopped against one another through the positively reinforcing synergies that come from a series of focused redevelopment efforts in close proximity to each other.

Southwest Waterfront According to Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Southwest waterfront has been known as the Wharf since her fathers day, and her fathers father, and his father before that (Favreau, 2011). Little, aside from the historic Maine Avenue Municipal Fish Market, remains of the working wharf that once was located where 7 th Street met the water at the Washington Channel. The waterfront suffered the same fate as the remainder of Southwest during urban renewal: it was stripped of its character, life, and vibrancy. Today, the Southwest Waterfront is typified by low-slung, large-format night clubs and restaurants that block views to the water, a series of sunken surface parking lots that plod along beside Maine Avenue, and an over-engineered local access road that divides the city from its waterfront (used primarily as a parking lot for idling tour buses that belch exhaust fumes). Fortunately, after more than a decade of planning, the Southwest Waterfront is again poised to be redeveloped. Through a public-private partnership, it will be converted into a vibrant neighborhood, which will again be known as the Wharf, and will extend the city fabric to the waters edge and breathe life back into a long-neglected natural amenity. In 2000, recognizing the great potential amenity that the rivers which wrap Washington represent, then-Mayor Anthony Williams organized twenty Federal and District agencies with property ownership or control along the Anacostia River to create the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI). Over the next three years, these stake-holders, with significant input from the Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 12

citizens and local community institutions, created the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan (World Bank, 2007). A guide to revitalization along the Anacostia Waterfront, the plan highlighted a number of development nodes and areas for environmental improvement and restoration. It also included one non-Anacostia project in its revitalization guide, the Southwest Waterfront, which sits along the Washington Channel. In late 2003, Williams proposed the creation of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC), a quasi-governmental development corporation, which would focus solely on the implementation of the AWI plan. It was felt that the AWI Framework Plan, modeled after the Battery Park City Authority which oversaw the redevelopment of Battery Park in New York City, only could be accomplished through the focused and sustained effort of a local waterfront authority. This authority would be supported by the local government, through $250 million in revenue bonds, but would be given the flexibility to respond and react quickly to market forces like a private sector developer, instead of being beholden to the typical bureaucracy of local government. Additionally, the AWC would have the authority to float their own bond and issue debt. The AWCs goal in implementing the AWI Framework Plan was to raise $8 billion in public and private funding in order to clean up the river, build 5,000 new residences, develop new mixed-use districts, create new infrastructure, and create better connectivity through a light rail transportation line over a 20-year time frame (Wilgoren, 2003). Finally created in 2004 through the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation Act, the AWC was governed by a Board of Directors with nine voting and four non-voting members. The vast majority of the voting board members were appointed by the Mayor; and included representation from community development corporations, the environmental community, labor unions, and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation (another District agency focused on redevelopment). The non-voting members included Federal representation from the National Capital Planning Commission, the Department of the Interior, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Defense (World Bank, 2007). Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 13

While the AWC had the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront as part of its mission by way of the AWI Framework Plan, the majority of the land along the Channel was actually under the control of RLARC / NCRC; and, similar to the Waterside Mall, there were a number of private tenants with long-term land leases on the properties. In order to broker an equitable exchange of property and development rights between these quasi-governmental groups, the city council passed the National Capital Revitalization Corporation Asset Transfer Clarification Amendment Act of 2006 (NCRC Act), which authorized the exchange of land and assets between the AWC, RLARC / NCRC, and the District of Columbia. Among other things, the NCRC Act transferred the McMillian Reservoir site to NCRC in exchange for the Southwest Waterfront properties being transferred to AWC (Fagon, 2006). By utilizing its available assets and excess properties, the District government was able to allow AWC to proceed with its core mission of revitalizing the waterways along and nearby the Anacostia while helping to spread development to other underserved parts of the city through the transfer of the McMillian land to NCRC. In 2006, AWC also issued the Requests for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront which included residential, hotel, retail, office, and cultural components. Seventeen development groups from around the DC region and around the country responded to the request, and five were chosen by the AWC to submit more detailed proposals in June of 2006. Two months later, the AWC selected two of the groups to submit final proposals; in September of 2006, a team led by PN Hoffman and Struever Brothers Eccles & Rouse were selected to be the lead developers for the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront (Madigan S. , 2006). While the NCRC Act was intended to facilitate the immediate transfer of the land to AWC, the actual transfer stalled for two years due to disagreements about the transaction terms and complications with the existing land leases. Finally, in mid-February of 2007, the land transfer between the parties was completed (Coombs, 2007). These complications and delays Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 14

are testament to the conflicting interests that can exist and inefficiencies that can occur within the local governmental structure when quasi-governmental organizations and private land leases are involved. Under the new Fenty administration, a task force was formed to determine whether the AWC and NCRC should be restructured or abolished. Frustrated by the track records and histories of both organizations and wishing to have more direct control over the development of the land controlled by AWC and NCRC, Mayor Fenty made this part of his key initiatives and pursued it in his first 100 days in office. Soon after the formation of the task force was announced, a bill was introduced by Council member Kwame Brown, then Chair of the Committee on Economic Development, to abolish both corporations and transfer their duties and authority to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) (Hedgpeth, 2007). This bill passed Council in June of 2007, was signed into law on July 19, 2007, and required that the agencies be fully consolidated with DMPED by October 1, 2007 (Killian, 2007). Under the control and direction of DMPED, the negotiations and development process continued to evolve. A significant public financing component was developed for the public costs associated with the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront. This provision was passed under bill 17-591, the Southwest Waterfront Bond Financing Act of 2008, in June of 2008 and provided for $198 million in public financing for the horizontal infrastructure, utilities, roads, parks, plazas, promenades, and waterside improvements. Revenue bonds were to be issued by the District for this amount and were to be supported by tax increment financing (TIF), by payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) programs, and were to be secured by a guarantee of special project assessments and revenues from the Downtown TIF Area (Deal, 2008). Upon completion, the redeveloped project is anticipated to generate in excess of $40 million in annual taxes to the District, which will provide approximately $13.3 million to the general fund annually

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 15

after debt service. Currently, this area generates less than $5 million in taxes each year (Deal, 2007). Soon after the Southwest Waterfront Bond Financing Act was approved, the HoffmanStruever Waterfront (HSW) team executed the Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) with DMPED. The LDA sets out the framework for the transfer of the District-owned waterfront parcels to Hoffman-Struever upon the receipts of development entitlements (Deal, 2008). HSW has submitted the stage one PUD application and is working through the remaining entitlements process with an anticipated construction start of fourth-quarter 2012 (Holland and Knight, LLP, 2011). Being redeveloped as the Wharf, the revitalized waterfront will provide a host of community benefits and neighborhood amenities to the Southwest neighborhood, the District of Columbia, and the greater region. These amenities include significant affordable and workforce housing components, local and unique retail opportunities, enhanced public spaces and new public piers, sustainable building technologies and innovative storm water management techniques, a new 3,500-seat music hall, a green produce market, enhanced bicycle infrastructure, workforce training intermediary, more than 12 acres of parks and open space, and a wealth of restaurants, bars, and other retail opportunities designed to help the District rediscover its waterfront. (Holland and Knight, LLP, 2011). While construction has not yet begun in earnest on the Wharf, improvements of the Southwest Waterfront offer a number of lessons related to the role of local government in redevelopment. By using government funds and powers, the District government has shown that it can leverage significant private investment in underutilized and neglected areas. The negotiation of a public private partnership can also help to ensure that a handsome amenity package is provided for the community. Additionally, it shows some of the benefits, as well as complications with the use of quasi-governmental development authorities. These groups may be free of the traditional bureaucratic handcuffs often maligned by local governments who are Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 16

trying to complete development, but they come with their own host of issues related to property ownership and oversight. They may also be particularly sensitive to administrative changes in the local political structure as evidenced by the immediate dissolution of AWC and NCRC that accompanied the incoming Fenty administration.

Southwest Eco District The federal enclave tucked between the National Mall and the Southeast-Southwest Freeway is one of the more architecturally unfortunate results of urban renewal. It is typified by the barren expanse along Tenth Street (known as the LEnfant Promenade), a neglected water feature at the end of the promenade, the brutal Forestall building which sits hulking across 10 th Street creating a visual barrier from the Mall, and a strange multi-level street environment that is disorienting and confusing to pedestrians. It did not have to be this way. A series of changed plans, missed opportunities, and deferred design dreams led to its current state. It is exactly this regrettable environment that the Southwest Eco District looks to change. Tenth Street, the main spine of the area, was conceived as way to create a meaningful connection between the Mall and the Southwest Waterfront. This was to be a beautiful treelined path that would have linked the Smithsonian Castle to the National Cultural Center (now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts). The National Cultural Center was originally proposed for the site currently known as the Banneker Overlook (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). This would have brought a strong cultural anchor to the area which could help to extend tourism towards the water which is approximately a half mile from the Mall and could be easily accessible by foot for visitors. Nestled below the site of the National Cultural Center, a parking structure was designed which would have supported the other adjacent developments planned for Southwest. These developments would have included the creation of a shop-lined pedestrian bridge across the Washington Channel known as the Ponte Vecchio. The Ponte Vecchio would have created a Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 17

direct link between the National Cultural Center on the east side of the channel and the National Aquarium that was contemplated to be located on the west side of the channel on East Potomac Park (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). Had this vision been realized, the current state of this area of Southwest might be very different. However, it was not meant to be. The Southwest site for the National Cultural Center lost out to the location in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood, where the Kennedy Center was finally constructed. The Secretary of the Interior could not find a developer or work out contracting issues with the Ponte Vecchio and the National Aquarium projects. Eventually those plans were abandoned. Without the demand from the Ponte Vecchio and Aquarium projects, the parking area below Banneker Overlook was scrapped as well. Even the simple recommendation by the Commission of Fine Arts to include trees along the Tenth Street in order to provide a sense of enclosure and shade was not heeded. Finally, and perhaps most critically, the visual connection to the Mall and the Smithsonian Castle was sacrificed on the altar of Federal efficiency. In order to provide greater internal connectivity, the Department of Defense, the Forestall Buildings intended resident, changed the design to span Tenth Street instead of flank it (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). Even before the Forestall Building was completed, its problematic nature was written about by the Washington Post Architectural Critic, Wolf Von Echardt, in the June 9, 1968 edition: the nearly completed Forrestal Building was built to bridge [10th Street] and the predictable esthetic disaster is all too apparent. The view from the [10th Street] Mall of the lovely old Smithsonian is brutally blocked. Only the very tip of its red brick Romanesque tower peaks teasingly over the massive roadblock. The cumulative effects of these architectural and programmatic shortcomings are the creation of an area that is dominated by federal office tenants, limited retail opportunities, and a lack of life after five in the evening, a displeasing encounter for pedestrians, and a monotonous and Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 18

uniform architectural palette. Even the name LEnfant Promenade does a disservice to the visionary plans of the planner of DC. LEnfants historic and prominent vistas provide a direct visual connection between critical points and nodes in the city the LEnfant Promenade, on the other hand, currently provides a visual connection from nothing to not-much-else. There are two main factors that have caused the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to begin the planning process for the Southwest Eco District. The first item relates to the growing culture of environmental responsibility, and the second is related to NCPCs vision and planning for the Mall at its surrounding areas. In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, the Executive Order on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. This Executive Order called for the Federal Government to lead by example and help to create a clean energy economy that will increase our Nations prosperity, promote energy security, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment. The Order requires that each federal agency develop, implement, and annually update a plan, known as a Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, which sets the agencys green trajectory based on a number of sustainability goals (Obama, 2009). Given the strong federal presence in the ownership and tenancy around this area, the revitalization and creation of an Eco District would help to achieve the desire of the federal government to lead by example. With this direction, NCPC has set out to look at the sustainability of this area from a district level. The order allows NCPC to search for ways to make the entire area function as an environmentally low-impact eco-district and to develop a model 21st-century sustainable mixed-use community (National Capital Planning Commission, 2010). The second genesis of the NCPC effort to enhance this area of Southwest is related to the design and siting of new museums and memorials on the National Mall. NCPC, through the development of the Monumental Core Framework Plan and the Extending the Legacy Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 19

document, has determined that the Mall is already at, or past, its ideal development capacity and that new building along the Mall should be strongly discouraged (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). With this limitation in mind, NCPC then developed the Monuments and Memorials Plan (2M Plan) to help identify and promote sites outside of the Monumental Core to locate new memorials and museums. The extension of major future monument and museum sites away from the Monumental Core was designed to protect the integrity of the Mall while helping to expand the reach of the tourist base and bring new opportunities to other parts of the city (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). The 2M plan identifies the Banneker Overlook site at the end of the LEnfant Promenade as a potential site for a major new memorial or museum. While this site has been evaluated by new museum groups in the past, the harsh characteristics of the LEnfant Promenade and the perceived barriers that are caused by its design and the presence of the Forestall building have caused it to lose favor with the inquiring groups (National Capital Planning Commission, 2011). By using the Eco District as a way to create a vibrant and pedestrian-friendly link along Tenth Street, NCPC hopes to create an environment which can support the placement of a new major memorial or museum on the Banneker site. Part of the Southwest Eco District strategy that is being developed relies on the leveraging of publicly-owned land to stimulate private sector development and the encouragement of existing private sector property owners to complete renovations and redevelopments that support the vision of the Eco District. While NCPCs efforts focus primarily along the Tenth Street / LEnfant Promenade spine, the District of Columbia Office of Planning is completing a similar study for re-imagining the Maryland Avenue corridor. Both studies would benefit from the lessons learned and best practices exemplified by the three public-private projects in Southwest that have already been explored above. These experiences should provide a road map for how both the federal and local governments can best leverage their funds, resources, and influence to induce the private sector to realize their shared goals and Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 20

visions for this area of Southwest.

Conclusion The common collective lesson apparent in studying the redevelopment of the Waterside Mall, the Arena Stage complex, the Southwest Waterfront, and the Southwest Eco District is that, when competently and flexibly applied, public funding and financing can successfully catalyze projects that, but for this public support, might not otherwise proceed. As exemplified by the projects studied above, projects that are supported in part by public funds should, in turn, be able to offer significant public benefit through the project design, programming, and execution. Additionally, Southwest shows how a number of focused investments by the local government can serve to secure and enhance the security and return on individual investments by creating an environment of mutual success and positive reinforcement or synergy. In a growing city like Washington, the revitalization of close-in areas, which may have long sat fallow, is critical to being able to accommodate the ever-expanding needs for office space, housing, retail, and hotel. These needs may have eclipsed the traditional downtown carrying capacity and, in order to stay competitive in the regional market place, new areas of the city must develop accordingly. Southwest is, for a number of reasons, poised to be the beneficiary of these development pressures. In creating a multi-pronged, multi-project approach to focused public investment, the District of Columbia government has shown that it can capitalize upon the latent potential for Southwest. The last decade and the coming one will be very dramatic for the Southwest quadrant. These four projects will continue to redefine what the history and legacy of Southwest is. The plans will work to highlight the successes of the urban renewal plan, change its failures, and adopt a new paradigm for Southwest that is based on sound urbanism.

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 21

The world is full of cities and neighborhoods, planned in the same era as Southwest, that are currently suffering through their own brutal architectural history. In the end, if we all listen closely, the lessons from Southwest might just change the world.

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 22

Bibliography Albert, N. (2008). Arena Stage Request for Refundable TIF - Determination of Special Merits. Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia: Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. Allen, C. (2005, July 17). A Wreck of a Plan: Look at How Renewal Ruined Southwest. Washington Post. Arena Stage. (2009). HISTORY OF ARENA STAGE: WHERE AMERICAN THEATER LIVES. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from www.arenastage.org: http://www.arenastage.org/news-press/press-room/institutionalinformation/information/Arena-StageHistory%20of%20Arena%20Stage%202009.pdf BERNSTEIN, F. A. (2010, October 6). Washingtons Fresh Coat of Greasepaint. The New York Times. Bisnow on Business, Inc. (2006, December 4). DC COMMITS TO WATERSIDE MALL. Bisnow on Business' Real Estate Weekly Email. Washington, DC: Bisnow on Business, Inc. Byrd, M. (2010, December 22). STAFF SPOTLIGHT: DESIRE URQUHART. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Arena Stage Blog: http://blog.arenastage.org/arena_stage_blogs/2010/12/staff-spotlightdesir%C3%A9e-urquhart.html Coombs. (2007, February 15). After Two Years, D.C. Agencies Complete Land Swap to Spur Anacostia Development. Washington Business Journal. Cultural Tourism DC. (2004). River Farms to Urban Towers: Southwest Heritage Trail. Cultural Tourism DC. Deal, A. (2006, September 29). PN Hoffman, Struever Brothers, Eccles & Rouse Selected as Developer of Southwest Waterfront. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.swdcwaterfront.com: http://www.swdcwaterfront.com/news/092606.htm Deal, A. (2007, July 15). www.swdcwaterfront.com. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Waterfront Bond Financing Act Unanimously Approved: http://www.swdcwaterfront.com/news/071508.htm Deal, A. (2008, September 30). Land Disposition Agreement for Long Awaited Redevelopment of Southwest Waterfront Entered Into by the District of Columbia and Hoffman-Struever Waterfront. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.swdcwaterfront.com: http://www.swdcwaterfront.com/news/093009.htm Deal, A. (2008, July 15). Waterfront Bond Financing Act Unanimously Approve. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from www.swdcwaterfront.com: http://www.swdcwaterfront.com/news/071508.htm Environmental Protection Agency. (1990, November 29). The Enviromental Protection Agency: A Retrospective. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from EPA History: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/20a.htm Fagon, D. (2006, December 7). BROWN SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATES PROMISING LAND TRANSFER AGREEMENT FOR SW WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from The WE District: http://www.thewedistrict.com/brown-successfully-negotiates-promising-landtransfer-agreement-for-sw-waterfront-development/
Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 23

Farmer, L. (2010, October 21). Arena Stage makeover heralds new era in SW. The Washington Examiner. Favreau, G. (2011). The Southwest Waterfront Becomes "The Wharf" Once Again. The Southwester, p. 1. Franko, K. (2010). History of Arena Stage: Where American Theater Lives. Retrieved May 4, 2011, from www.arenastage.org: http://www.arenastage.org/newspress/press-room/institutional-information/information/Arena-StageHistory%20of%20Arena%20Stage%202009.pdf Gandhi, N. M. (2008). Fiscal Impact Statement: "Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Waterfront Arts Project Refundable TIF Approval Resolution of 2008". Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia: Office of Chief Financial Officer. Healy, P. (2010, August 6). After Broadway, Obamas Turn to Washington Theater. The New York Times. Hedgpeth, D. (2005, January 31). With Fannie Mae Out, Waterside Needs Ideas . Washington Post. Hedgpeth, D. (2007, January 15). Development Agencies Defend Performance. Washington Post. Holland and Knight, LLP. (2011). Stage One Planned Unit Development Application for Southwest Waterfront. Washington, DC. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. (n.d.). Berman v. Parker. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from Oyez, U.S. Supreme Court Media: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_22 Killian. (2007, July 20). Merger of D.C. Development Agencies Now Official. Washington Business Journal. Lazo, A. (2007, November 2). After Delays, Ground Breaks on Waterside Mall Project. Washington Post. Madigan. (2006, September 28). PN Hoffman/Struever to Lead $500M Southwest Waterfront Revitalization. Washington Business Journal. Madigan, S. (2006, January 13). New revitalization deal set for old Waterside Mall site. Washington Business Journal. Montgomery, D. (1997, July 18t). As EPA Goes, So Goes . . . Waterside Mall, SW Neighbors Fear. The Washington Post. Natarajan, P. (2006, December 4). District government going into former Waterside Mall. Washington Business Journal. National Capital Planning Commision. (2010). Missions, Goals, Objectives for SW EcoDistrict. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.ncpc.gov: http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Planning/SWEcodistrict/overview/MissionG oalsObjectivesSWEcodistrict.pdf National Capital Planning Commission. (2011). Southwest Ecodistrict: Existing Conditions Report and Maps. Washington, DC: National Capital Planning Commission. National Capital Planning Commission. (2011). Southwest EcoDistrict: Short History of Federal Properties in the Study Area . Washington, DC: National Capital Planning Commission.

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 24

National Parks Service. (2004). Historic American Building Survey: Southwest Washington, Urban Renewal Area. Washington, DC: National Parks Service. Obama, B. (2009). Executive Order 13514: FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary . Penton Media Inc. (2006, December 7). Arena Stage Raises More Than $100 Million for New Theatre Campus. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from LiveDesignOnline.com: http://livedesignonline.com/theatre/arena_stage_theatre_campus/ Smith, B. (2006, July 31). Former EPA Attorney Can Sue for 'Sick Building Syndrome'. Legal Times. Southwest Ecodistrict Task Force. (2010). Southwest Ecodistrict Homepage. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.ncpc.gov: http://www.ncpc.gov/ncpc/Main(T2)/Planning(Tr2)/SouthwestEcodistrict.html Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc. (n.d.). Southwest Washington History. Retrieved 04 25, 2011, from http://www.swdc.org/neighborhood/about_sw_history.htm Steinman, D. (1993, Fall). The Architecture of Illness: Millions of Workers Are "Sick of Work". Retrieved April 26, 2011, from Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia: http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall93sick.html The Southwest Community Council, Inc. & The Southwest Neighborhood Assembly. (1965). Southwest Guide. Washington, DC: The Southwest Community Council, Inc. & The Southwest Neighborhood Assembl. Thom, B. (2010). ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT - BING THOM. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.arenastage.org: http://www.arenastage.org/plan-your-visit/the-meadcenter/architect/ Tregoning, H. (2007). Public Hearing Report for ZC 02-38A: Waterfront (Waterside Mall Redevelopment). Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Trescott, J. (2007, October 4). Arena Stage Moving to Va. While Venue Is Expanded. The Washington Post. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Leading by Example: Two Case Studies Documenting How The Environmental Protection Agency Incorporated Environmental Features into New Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Weiss, M. (1999, September 3). Waterside Attraction. Washington City Paper. White, S., & Chamis, E. (2001, March 19). Making over Waterside. Washington Business Journal. Wilgoren. (2003, December 3). D.C. to Unveil Ambitious Anacostia Waterfront Plan. Washington Post. World Bank. (2007). Washington DC: Anacostia Waterfront Corporation. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLED/Resources/3396501194284482831/4356163-1211318886634/AWCProfile.pdf

Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 25

You might also like