the renewal of post-urban-renewal southwest washington dc

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

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


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--


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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”


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


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.


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.


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/


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.


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

the renewal of post-urban-renewal southwest washington dc

Documents