Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 1
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 2
of significant investment and redevelopment. Finally, the planning of the Southwest Eco-District
along L’Enfant 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 3
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 city’s 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 4
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 Carson’s 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
agency…to 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 5
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 building–related 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 Clinton’s 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 6
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 EPA’s decision to not renew their lease also
prompted the building’s 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 7
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 DC’s
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 8
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 District’s 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 15-
year 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 9
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, Arena’s
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 10
the following year, they would match it dollar-for-dollar. This challenge rejuvenated the
campaign; and over the next year, with the Mead’s 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 theatre’s
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 theatre’s $160 million price tag
(Gandhi, 2008).
The District’s 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
Stage’s 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 11
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 District’s
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 Stage’s 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 12
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 father’s day, and her father’s 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 7th 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 water’s 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 13
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 AWC’s 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 14
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 15
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 16
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 Hoffman-
Struever 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 17
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 L’Enfant 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 tree-
lined 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 18
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 Building’s 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 19
uniform architectural palette. Even the name “L’Enfant Promenade” does a disservice to the
visionary plans of the planner of DC. L’Enfant’s historic and prominent vistas provide a direct
visual connection between critical points and nodes in the city – the “L’Enfant 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 NCPC’s 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 Nation’s 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 agency’s 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 20
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 L’Enfant 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 L’Enfant 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 NCPC’s efforts focus primarily
along the Tenth Street / L’Enfant 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 21
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 22
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 23
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/institutional-information/information/Arena-Stage-History%20of%20Arena%20Stage%202009.pdf
BERNSTEIN, F. A. (2010, October 6). Washington’s 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: DESIRÉE URQUHART. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Arena Stage Blog: http://blog.arenastage.org/arena_stage_blogs/2010/12/staff-spotlight-desir%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-land-transfer-agreement-for-sw-waterfront-development/
Matthew Steenhoek -- The Renewal of Post-Urban-Renewal Southwest Washington, DC -- Page 24
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/news-press/press-room/institutional-information/information/Arena-Stage-History%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/MissionGoalsObjectivesSWEcodistrict.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 25
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-mead-center/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/339650-1194284482831/4356163-1211318886634/AWCProfile.pdf