Testimony in Opposition of SW Waterfront Development at Zoning Commission

Opposition to SW Waterfront Case No. 11-03

I would like to thank the Zoning Board for this opportunity to testify in opposition to the proposed development on the SW Waterfront.  I am not anti-development I am just against this development as it is stated in the currently proposed PUD I.

I am a resident of Harbour Square Cooperative, Inc. I moved here 3 years ago from Columbia Heights, another area of the city that has been developed beyond its capacity to handle the number of people, buildings, and traffic that has been dropped there.  In the beginning, we were so hopeful and trusted the developers to do the right thing: to build great buildings, move traffic, and make living there a great experience.  We were naïve and sorely disappointed. The area is an urban nightmare with high crime, horrible traffic, and ugly buildings.

I moved to SW and Harbour Square because of the serenity and beauty of the midcentury architecture and landscaping.  Chloetheil Woodward Smith designed Harbour Square. She also was the architect for Capitol Park I and II and Waterside Apartments and Townhomes.  Her forte was integrating pastoral settings with large apartment blocks and townhouses focused on bodies of water. She was always drawn to the water and in conjunction with landscape architects, Dan Kiley and Hideo Sasaki, designed award winning gardens like Harbour Square’s reflecting pool (Kiley-Illus.1) and Waterside Park along the Washington Channel (Sasaki-illus.2) that the developer wants to obliterate.

Views were also important to Chloetheil Woodward Smith. There is a picture of the current waterfront from my apartment below (illus. 3).  It is vibrant with activity every hour of the day and night. I think it is beautiful. It was designed by the firm of Smith and Assoc. The current developer has referred to it as ugly and underutilized.  Perhaps if all the plans Miss Smith designed had been carried out, it wouldn’t be quite as stark today as it has become. She designed a place to gather and shop.  She even designed a “Ponte Vecchio” type of bridge that was begun in the late 1950’s and intended to house restaurants and shops but never came to fruition (illus. 4.) What we are left with is the base of that bridge; brutal and plain.

Now the new developers come in and make grand pronouncements about huge buildings and what the neighborhood needs, but once again they don’t live here.  They have barely visited here.  They say they have had hundreds of meetings but with whom? Is it like Columbia Heights all over again?  They talk to people who will agree with them or people who want something from them.  But do they want to talk to the 16,000 or so regular people who live and work and fight the traffic and walk to the fish market and run by the water and want another grocery store? Do they consider our elderly women who love to sit in the breeze at the aforementioned Waterside Park?  Or about how great it is to be able to walk the lower promenade with your child on a tricycle and not have to worry about being run over by a car?

Alleys of 25 feet do not a grand vista make and there are too many unanswered questions in this submission to make me comfortable with endorsing it. A veggie stand once a week is not going to make up for buildings that will block my view of the Washington monument or taking away the sun at 3pm on a winter’s day. Please have them review Chloetheil Woodward Smith’s original plan at the Library of Congress (Smith & Associated Architects Architectural Drawing Archive-Waterfronts-Washington(DC) 1950-1980-Library of Congress) and come back to you with a more humane plan with current residents and buildings in mind.