Considering the Future of Stadium-Armory -- Part Two: DC's Own Le Champ de Mar?

"You're going to be rich!", quips my friend, a mechanical engineer who is aware of the changes poised to take place in the Stadium-Armory section of Capitol Hill, as we discuss my home renovations. Though a nice notion, I think he might be a bit optimistic. Then again a little optimism can go a long way. That's how I usually feel when I look at the various development studies and master plans that are developed for target areas around the city. Projects such as the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, H Street/Benning Road Transportation study (including those controversial, albeit attractive streetcars), and Poplar Point redevelopment appeal to our senses of what a city can be. I always get a rush of excitement when I look at the glossy renderings, especially viewed in contrast with images of what the areas look like today. I think that it is in our nature to want to see things made better (a quick glance at the TV Guide certainly attests to this fascination, with entire networks now devoted to improving home, health, and lifestyle).

The National Capital Planning Commission's RFK Stadium Site Redevelopment Study, released December 2006, is one of these types of proposals that can stir the imagination with visions of what might be. And it's a solid study, recommending the creation of greenspace in the form of a waterfront park with recreation facilities and a monument site, a commemorative facility, such as a museum or federal building, to match the scale of the adjacent Armory, and mixed-use development to provide residential and retail elements, such as cafes, restaurants, dry-cleaners, and bookshops. The study also recommends the realignment of the transportation network to establish Constitution and Independence Avenues as 'symmetrical key avenues' and reinforcing East Capitol Street as a grand avenue. Finally, there's also the clever notion to create a design element of the less than ideal, above-grade Metro line, such as Rem Koolhaas's rail station for the McCormick Tribune Campus at IIT.

Not surprisingly, the word 'Gateway' is used to define the area. Seemingly a catch-phrase of modern redevelopment, any project along what is considered a transportation corridor into the city is now dubbed a 'Gateway'. There's the Anacostia Gateway, the Northeast Gateway, the Georgia Avenue Gateway, and the winner for most titles, the South Capitol Street Gateway (aka the 'Monumental Gateway', aka the 'Gateway to the Future', and yes, even, the 'Green Gateway'). Because it is sited at the western base of the East Capitol Bridge at the edge of L'Enfant's historic plan for the City of Washington, the term gateway is applied here too (the 'Eastern Gateway' to be sure), though I question how fitting this is. And, despite it's alignment with the Capitol, L'Enfant actually paid little mind to this eastern most tip of E. Capitol Street, simply cutting off his grid of residential blocks just short of the river. If this is to truly be a gateway, then what will be the draw?

This is perhaps the greatest question raised by this study. If you build it, who will come? With Fenty's notion to retain the site for stadium use, at least there is the promise of civic use. As a nearby resident the notion of a waterfront park is, of course, appealing, and long overdue in our appreciation of the waterfront that the city has for too long neglected. And a waterfront park here could certainly create a significant tie to nearby Heritage and Kingman Islands. But I cast a look at underutilized Anacostia Park and wonder if waterfront parks alone are a real draw, or if they are simply a romantic notion. And while the study examines examples such as St. Louis's Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park, with Eero Saarinen's iconic arch, and Paris's Le Champ de Mar, with its Eiffel Tower, the suggestion of a monument here is diminutive by comparison. The truth is that a monument of comparable scale would be inappropriate here, as it would compete with DC's signature Washington Monument. As such these comparisons may not be apt. I ask myself: Would Le Champ de Mar be the same without the Eiffel Tower?

If then landmark alone may not be enough to encourage the 'steady flow of visitors' discussed in the report, are there other legitimate notions to attract users here? While some of the images in the report suggest the potential for outdoor entertainment, this is not specifically identified in the text. But having an outdoor space for smaller scale live entertainment or perhaps even something like a DC Food, Wine, or Jazz Festival would be a novelty, (though of course concessions would need to be made by the National Park Service). Norfolk, VA's Town Point Park is a successful example of a waterfront park which successfully hosts these types of events annually.

Perhaps the more likely draw will be the commemorative facility, to be built opposite the Armory on East Capitol Street. Potential facilities mentioned include a museum, performance house, aquarium, or federal building. Like any study of this type, the specific use is left rather general, to be determined at a later date. Therefore implementation will be an important factor. But this aspect is one of the study's more well-conceived notions.

The mixed-use component of the study certainly stands to benefit the community the most if plans to establish restaurants and service-oriented businesses are carried out. (Mind you this is coming from someone who is eager for the new Harris Teeter to open a metro stop away). But these are not swift moving projects. The Old Convention Center Site is an example of this, where the the process towards a new mixed-use development began in '05, yet the first buildings here won't be complete until 2011. So these things take time, and the whims of an ebb and flow housing market will undoubtedly have an affect as well.

From my vantage, there is much reason to focus efforts on this area beyond the obvious 'the stadium may soon be empty' reasoning. At a time that the housing market is on a downswing, the location is attractive to home-buyers looking for an affordable residential neighborhood that has single-family housing options and is decidedly less dicey than other emerging parts of the city. Well served by public transportation, including metro, and walking distance to nearby Lincoln Park and Eastern Market, the neighborhood comes alive on sunny weekends. And I am optimistic that the redevelopment of this area might further benefit existing community resources such as neighboring schools.

As I mentioned in Part One, there are several ways in which the groundwork of the NCPC study might be combined with a potential new sports complex, should efforts to get the Redskins to return to the District pan out. I'm hopeful that, should that endeavor succeed, aspects of the NCPC study will be implemented.

It will certainly be some time before any actions are taken towards the realization of a redeveloped site. My only hope is that the stakeholders in this project are ready to act once the last game is played and the lights go out on RFK.
Read more!

Considering the Future of Stadium-Armory -- Part One: A New RFK?

Well the opening pitch has been thrown out as the Nationals' season has begun. The new stadium complete just in time for opening day, the Nationals won their season opener against the Atlanta Braves. But meanwhile, just upstream, another stadium sat empty. With the exodus of baseball and the Post and Times reporting the eminent departure of the D.C. United, RFK's days seem to be numbered.

As a recent transplant to this part of the city, living a stones throw from RFK Stadium, I've begun to really take a close look at the plans to redevelop the area. For now, only one thing is certain...there is a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen here. On the one hand, the National Capital Planning Commission has prepared a redevelopment study for the area which recommends demolishing RFK and replacing it with a mixed-use development, including office space, residences, and a monument and waterfront park space. Then there's Mayor Fenty's intention to woo the Redskins back to RFK.

With change on the horizon, I'm left pondering what really is the best option for the RFK Stadium site. In this two part series I'll consider the pros and cons of each notion. Also, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Be sure to vote in our poll on this issue, and leave your comments!

What would a new or retrofitted RFK mean for the area? Would it really even bring a notable change at all? On the one hand the return of the Redskins to a new or retrofitted RFK could be just the stimulus needed to boost much of the area, much like the area around the new Nationals' ballpark is now experiencing. But my concern here is that much of what doesn't work for the RFK site currently would remain unchanged. There are some major shortcomings of the current RFK site. These include the sea of parking which surrounds RFK, making it much more isolated than its replacement. And while the new stadium falls short of making a meaningful link to the Anacostia River just beyond its bleachers, the waterfront is not completely ignored either, whereas RFK's proximity to the Anacostia is imperceptible. If not for the damp chill that issues forth from the river on cold winter mornings, one would forget that the river was just out of sight, beyond this mammoth bowl. Traffic patterns and a loop of highway ramps deliver impatient morning commuters into the city, dumping them onto residential East Capitol and C Streets, making pedestrian safety a concern. Would proposed renovations to the stadium site rectify these issues? I fear that they would not. And there is the greater concern regarding the seasonal uses of a sports stadium. (Granted I do enjoy the off-season respite.) True other auxiliary uses might support the facility in the off-season, but with the Armory just steps away, and other complexes throughout the city, is there a need for more assembly space? In fact one has to ask the more pressing question: Does DC really need another stadium?

This is in fact the very question being posed regarding the fate of the DC United -- but that's soccer, which all seem to agree just doesn't generate the same revenue as DC's other sports teams. It would seem that a football stadium, on the other hand, offers greater incentives.

This leads me to wonder: Was there a missed opportunity? Well, perhaps. In this age of downsizing in the name of environmental consciousness, does it make sense that DC is now looking to have four separate facilities for its five different sports teams? Considered the nation's first multi-purpose stadium, was that one of the things that RFK actually got right? With the Nationals already in a new stadium, and all indications of a new soccer stadium on the way, this now seems to be a question left to the next generation of urban planners. While I suppose that there may be some notion of a shared football and soccer facility, no such suggestion has been made. Though the thought of a multi-team stadium a la Herzog & de Meuron's Allianz Arena is appealing.

Should the Mayor succeed in his efforts to bring the Redskins back to the District, hopefully an evaluation of the things that don't quite work for RFK will be considered. Access to the waterfront in the creation of a waterfront park, an idea proposed by the NCPC's proposal, would certainly be a good start, and perhaps justified as a public assembly space or 'front lawn' for the stadium. Considering the amount of runoff produced by the parking lots that surround the stadium which flows into the already polluted Anacostia River, it would certainly be the ecologically sensitive thing to do. Parking therefore may need to be relegated to parking structures, the reduced footprint and increased density of which could be seen as positives in this reimagining of the site, leading to residential and retail blocks on the northern and southern sides of the stadium and reinforcing monumental East Capital Street on the west, in much the same way that plans for land adjacent to the new Nationals' ballpark hopes to transform South Capital Street. Interestingly, other issues that are addressed by the NCPC study would be relevant to consider when imagining a new RFK, such as reworking existing traffic patterns to address the transition between the city grid and nearby freeway. I'll weigh the pros and cons of that proposal in my next post.
Read more!