May 11, 2006
Walter Reed Still Federal Government Land
It was a tantalizing prospect. The news that Walter Reed Army Medical Center would close in 2011 had District residents and officials dreaming of the possible uses for the 113 acres of land located between 16th Street and Georgia Avenue in residential Northwest Washington.
Getting their hands on the land was always a longshot, however, and news organizations are reporting today that the Feds have lowered the boom on the idea -- deciding instead to sell 34 acres of the property to the General Services Administration and the rest to the State Department. Mayoral officials and D.C. Council Chair Linda Cropp expressed skepticism about the government's current need for the land, while Councilmember Adrian Fenty expressed a hope that development might be possible along the property's periphery.
The Washington Business Journal, however, notes that the government has a pressing need for highly secure space, so it's likely that whatever GSA and State end up putting there, the land will remain closed off and isolated from the rest of the city and its tax rolls. Too bad; with development in the works for parts of the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the McMillan Reservoir property, Washington could have made the Walter Reed land part of a sweeping reimagining of the heart of the city. Now, it seems, we'll continue to have one more District fence to peer over.
Picture from Walter Reed website.
|
Eh, considering the DC government's lack of vision regarding development, I can't really feel too bad about this. This just means one less condo/Target/Starbucks complex...
At least the condo/Target/Starbucks complex would give the city some tax revenue. As federal property, the city has to pay extra for many services required by the State Department on top of the opportunity costs of not developing the land.
How is way up 16th St considered "the heart of the city"?
It seems to me there are competing desires here. On the one hand the city is always trying to retain federal offices within the District, and of course trying to maximize tax revenue. In this case it makes perfect sense for the Feds to keep Walter Reed - the chanceries and the unnamed offices which need secure settings are kept in the District without removing additional land from the tax rolls.
And as for planning - I can just imagine what the surrounding neighborhoods would have allowed to be developed at Walter Reed.... single family houses, cul de sacs - a whole new suburb in town.
(And I agree that it is a long stretch to call this ares the heart of the city.)
What I meant was that the swath of land between Rock Creek and North Capitol is one of the key residential corridors in the city, and the Walter Reed project, the AFRH development, and the McMillan Reservoir development, were they all developed together, could significantly change the appearance and feel of that corridor.
? so District politicians gripe when the administration considers putting DHS headquarters outside of the city. Then they gripe when Walter Reed functions is moved outside of the city. Then they gripe when the land is reused for federal functions?
So it seems that District officials want federal offices, but they don't want federal offices?
Oh well. To be fair it may not be the same District officials who are griping about everything.
From a planning perspective it makes sense to "gripe." Walter Reed has developed a community around it of hotels and services for families of employees.
Switching the land to DC, would have allowed a connection between the commercial uses of Silver Spring and the growth of the arts district around southern boundary of Silver Spring. With the rest of the commercial districts of Georgia Avenue, especially with DC's plans for a light rail line along Georgia.
A secure usage, walled off from the surrounding community and only used during the daytime, is not the type of community that the District is trying to create along Georgia.
One of the uses the Feds are proposing is housing for State Department staff. Really? So they really need 'secure facilities' for State Department staff in training? Do they really think that poorly of the DC area, that they have to put their staff in housing behind barricades in a secure federal facility?
It's a bit insulting to us locals, and it seems like a poor use of secure space if they are so short on it and all.