Where will the Janney kids learn (and play) while this project is under construction?
In contemplating a stand-alone school modernization project, DCPS has always assumed that Janney students could “swing in place” – i.e. remain on campus – while their new facilities are being constructed. Under that scenario, this was a realistic assumption. Because the new classroom facilities will be approximately as large as the main building currently is, once they are completed, the school could move into them as the old building is modernized. Demountables would, no doubt, have to be moved around at various stages of construction (with a resultant temporary loss of play space), but basically the current level of overcrowding could be maintained throughout the renovation process. Moreover, because the sole objective of the project would be to better meet the school’s facilities needs, construction would, presumably, be scheduled to minimize disruption to the students’ education rather than to further other goals.
Though DCPS has yet to acknowledge it, the “swing in place” approach becomes much less viable (or attractive) if Janney is to be modernized as part of a public-private venture incorporating the library and a large multifamily residential building. The scale and duration of construction changes dramatically. Significant excavation will be required. Less land will be available for relocating classrooms and outdoor playspaces. And a variety of stakeholders with competing interests will have a say in what gets done where, when, and how.
When asked about this issue back in March at a public meeting sponsored by ANC 3E, LCOR (the developer Fenty wishes to select for this project) indicated that they would prefer to have Janney students off campus during construction. That approach, which they used for the Oyster PPP, would be faster, cheaper, and safer. LCOR indicated that if the kids were to be kept on campus, it would extend the length of the construction phase by at least another year and that, while they would work hard to minimize disruption to the school, the learning environment would inevitably be less than optimal. The kids’ safety could certainly be ensured, but doing so would shrink the space available on campus for their use even further.
To get a sense of the logistics involved, click on the "ANC 3E's Website" link under the Documents heading to your right (you may have to scroll up to see it). Find the Janney School/LCOR document and print out pages 5-7 and 10. You might also want to print out Appendix A and B (1 page each) from the RFP; scroll down to find them under "2007." Now start imagining the construction sites at various stages of the process. (Likely order: (1) underground garage and foundation for mixed-use building, (2) library/apartment building, (3) new school building(s), (4) modernization of old building (some work could be done earlier during summer months when the rooms are not in use), (5) removal of demountables, reconstruction of playgrounds and fields.) What follows is my attempt to work through the logistics. During the RFP revision process, the ANC specifically asked for this planning to be done and included with the proposals, but DMPED ignored that request. So we're stuck figuring it out ourselves as best we can. Email me (smithhemb@aol.com) if you come up with something better than/different from the scenarios that follow.
The other thing that needs to be figured out is how long each phase will last. Judging from recent local experience on projects of comparable size, the first phase is probably about 4-6 months and the second phase is more like 2 years. I'm guessing that phases 3, 4, and 5 will take place over the course of two school years-- that's what DCPS's budgeting seems to assume for a stand-alone rebuild and that’s what Oyster took. Plus, it's hard to believe it could be accomplished in one, especially with the kids on site (which means that the renovations to the older building and new construction can't proceed simultaneously because, during the school year, one part must be available for use while work proceeds on the other part). The outstanding question is to what extent phases 2 and 3 can be overlapped. If they can't, we're probably looking at at least 4 years of construction on site. If they can, it could be closer to 3 years. (This is real time -- not academic years. 36 months could span 4 school years)
The edge of the excavation for the garage will be about 15 feet from the Wisconsin Avenue side of Janney’s main building and it will run along that edge of campus from the sidewalk at Albemarle Street to a point about 20 feet short of the Saint Ann’s alley. Remember that construction sites need access roads (and quite long ones to lower trucks into deep holes). At this stage, unless the alley from Yuma can be used (and it looks too narrow for construction vehicles), it would seem as if 42nd Street would be the only way to route vehicles into the site. (At a later stage, access might be from Albemarle, using the new driveway for the garage.) So imagine a curb cut on 42nd near the southern edge of the playground, traversing campus. Factor in safety perimeters as well. And construction sites typically also need areas for staging materials, for storing equipment, and for onsite office space for construction managers. None of this can go on the library land because it’s a big hole in the ground at this stage and the lot will be 100% occupied by the library/residential building once the hole is covered.
In this first stage, Janney’s former soccer field is also a big hole, so nothing can be relocated there either. Later on, most of it will be covered by an apartment building and 20’ of the 40’ between the school and that building will be devoted to a road running down the middle of this strip of land. The 10' margin on the school's side of that road will probably be useless -- it's too narrow for a demountable and too close to traffic for a playground. Perhaps some of the garage space can be used for construction materials storage at this stage (i.e. during the (2 year?) period in which the library/residential building is being constructed.)
Once the library/residential building is finished and work begins in earnest on the new school building, the entire construction operation will be housed on Janney’s now-reduced campus. The library and residences will be in active use and they consume all of the library’s land as well as what used to be the school's soccer field and part of the teacher's parking lot. The garage will also be in use – which means teacher parking can be relocated there, but construction materials probably can’t be stored in that location any more.
While the new school building is under construction, the existing demountables will still be in use, but at least one will have to be moved out of the path of the new building. At this stage there will be a demolition project (the old gym/cafeteria addition will be removed) and perhaps a reconstruction project (patching the hole its removal leaves in the center of the school's southern wall), followed by two construction sites -- one 40' from (and parallel to) the school's SW quadrant and another perpendicular to and abutting the school's southeast quadrant.
At this stage, the blacktop area is essentially eliminated (some of it will be reclaimed post-construction) and the kids will probably be limited to the playground space on the 42nd street side of campus (assuming that construction vehicles can be routed through Albemarle), which may have to house the relocated demountable as well (although it seems likely that construction related attrition will drive out enough students that maybe that demountable can be eliminated). Because the new wing extends at least 40' beyond the old building on the west side, some of that playground space will be cut into and, for safety reasons, more of it may be temporarily off-limits to students. Perhaps some additional play space at the southern edge of the campus (i.e. the future location of the playing field) can remain accessible during this phase.
Janney's SIT has said its support for the PPP is contingent upon the kids staying on campus during construction. The additional question that needs to be asked at this point is not "at what cost and for how long?" I'd be really hesitant to have my kid spending half of elementary school in a cramped construction zone. And for what? To end up with a campus where the athletic facilities have been cut in half to make way for an apartment building. The rush to do it quicker (rather than to do it better) seems really short-sighted when it means that the process is much more disruptive and the outcome is less appealing. At the rate, we're going, maybe next year's PreK and K classes will still be on campus to enjoy the new buildings, but at the cost of spending most of their elementary school years under really substandard conditions. The older kids get the pain without the gain. And the newcomers are spared the pain, but their kids will have lost 2/3 of an acre of athletic facilities. Who benefits from this approach?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Janney SIT's letter to the Mayor in response to his July 10th announcement
July 21, 2008
Dear Mayor Fenty,
The Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) met on July 15, 2008 to discuss the recently announced selection of LCOR as a negotiating partner to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the city. The Janney SIT has previously agreed, after some debate, to consider development proposals that would require the Janney School to give up part of its campus to the proposed development.
The overriding reason Janney is willing to cede part of its campus is because Janney urgently needs modernization and expansion. A Blue Ribbon School with a history of excellent academic achievement, The Janney School is also the most overcrowded school in the DCPS system, and in great need of modernization (built in 1925). The building’s capacity is 364 and the expected population for the 2008-2009 year is over 500 students. There is one restroom for all those students on the first floor. There are five classrooms combined into three demountables (trailers) clogging Janney’s playground.
The average class size in the primary grades regularly exceeds 25 children and approaches 30 per class. Janney turns away 3 out of 4 applicants for Pre-Kindergarten, and has not accepted any out of bounds students in the primary grades in years, despite a long waiting list. There is one room for school-wide meetings that is also our lunch room and gym. Because of a lack of space, some counselors meet in converted closets, and meetings happen in the hallways. Despite all of that, wonderful things happen here.
In light of these space and condition issues, the SIT would like to reiterate its conditional support for a PPP under the following terms:
1. An addition to the school that meets the latest specifications from DCPS. This would mean adding approximately 39,000 square feet to the existing structure to accommodate an expected student body of 550, as currently foreseen in the DCPS Capital Improvement Plan;
2. Modernization of the existing Janney school building, bringing it up to current building codes and improving its electrical system, heating and cooling systems, bringing it into compliance with the ADA, and increasing the number of student restrooms;
3. An earlier time schedule for these repairs and modernizations, with construction plans in place by 2009 and construction scheduled to be completed in 2012;
4. Moving Janney’s current surface parking lot underground, thereby allowing the school to replace the play area that it would lose to an expanded library or residential building with an equal amount of green space (no net loss of green space);
5. Ensuring that the students remain on the Janney campus during the construction phase of the expansion and modernization (swing in space); and
6. Meaningful opportunities for Janney community involvement and input on plans and processes relating to and affecting the Janney School.
Our support for the project is conditioned on the above principles being formalized in writing as either a Directive from the Office of the Mayor to the responsible agencies or a Memorandum of Understanding between DCPS and the Office of Economic Development.
The Janney School Improvement Team is supportive of moving forward on the modernization of Janney with the above principles, whether the PPP goes forward or not. This letter is not intended as an indication that the Janney School community is unanimous in support of the PPP. The Janney community is diverse with varying opinions on most all subjects. However, there is near unanimity that Janney School, as the most crowded school in DCPS, is in need of an addition and quick modernization. We look forward to continuing these talks and to participating in what we envision as a positive result for the community.
Sincerely,
The Janney School Improvement Team
Kirk Rankin, SIT chair
Tawana Franklin, Staff rep.
Laure Hunter, Teacher
Shellie Wood, Teacher
Andrew Smiles, Parent
Karen Martin, Parent
Allison Feeney, Parent
Karen Langford, Teacher
Mary Osterman, Teacher
Malin Kerwin, Teacher
Karen Kalat, PTA rep.
Sczerina Perot, PTA rep.
Marijke Gero, Teacher
Jane Malhotra, Parent
Cheryl Ohlson, Parent
Brenda Petteway, Acting Principal
Dear Mayor Fenty,
The Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) met on July 15, 2008 to discuss the recently announced selection of LCOR as a negotiating partner to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the city. The Janney SIT has previously agreed, after some debate, to consider development proposals that would require the Janney School to give up part of its campus to the proposed development.
The overriding reason Janney is willing to cede part of its campus is because Janney urgently needs modernization and expansion. A Blue Ribbon School with a history of excellent academic achievement, The Janney School is also the most overcrowded school in the DCPS system, and in great need of modernization (built in 1925). The building’s capacity is 364 and the expected population for the 2008-2009 year is over 500 students. There is one restroom for all those students on the first floor. There are five classrooms combined into three demountables (trailers) clogging Janney’s playground.
The average class size in the primary grades regularly exceeds 25 children and approaches 30 per class. Janney turns away 3 out of 4 applicants for Pre-Kindergarten, and has not accepted any out of bounds students in the primary grades in years, despite a long waiting list. There is one room for school-wide meetings that is also our lunch room and gym. Because of a lack of space, some counselors meet in converted closets, and meetings happen in the hallways. Despite all of that, wonderful things happen here.
In light of these space and condition issues, the SIT would like to reiterate its conditional support for a PPP under the following terms:
1. An addition to the school that meets the latest specifications from DCPS. This would mean adding approximately 39,000 square feet to the existing structure to accommodate an expected student body of 550, as currently foreseen in the DCPS Capital Improvement Plan;
2. Modernization of the existing Janney school building, bringing it up to current building codes and improving its electrical system, heating and cooling systems, bringing it into compliance with the ADA, and increasing the number of student restrooms;
3. An earlier time schedule for these repairs and modernizations, with construction plans in place by 2009 and construction scheduled to be completed in 2012;
4. Moving Janney’s current surface parking lot underground, thereby allowing the school to replace the play area that it would lose to an expanded library or residential building with an equal amount of green space (no net loss of green space);
5. Ensuring that the students remain on the Janney campus during the construction phase of the expansion and modernization (swing in space); and
6. Meaningful opportunities for Janney community involvement and input on plans and processes relating to and affecting the Janney School.
Our support for the project is conditioned on the above principles being formalized in writing as either a Directive from the Office of the Mayor to the responsible agencies or a Memorandum of Understanding between DCPS and the Office of Economic Development.
The Janney School Improvement Team is supportive of moving forward on the modernization of Janney with the above principles, whether the PPP goes forward or not. This letter is not intended as an indication that the Janney School community is unanimous in support of the PPP. The Janney community is diverse with varying opinions on most all subjects. However, there is near unanimity that Janney School, as the most crowded school in DCPS, is in need of an addition and quick modernization. We look forward to continuing these talks and to participating in what we envision as a positive result for the community.
Sincerely,
The Janney School Improvement Team
Kirk Rankin, SIT chair
Tawana Franklin, Staff rep.
Laure Hunter, Teacher
Shellie Wood, Teacher
Andrew Smiles, Parent
Karen Martin, Parent
Allison Feeney, Parent
Karen Langford, Teacher
Mary Osterman, Teacher
Malin Kerwin, Teacher
Karen Kalat, PTA rep.
Sczerina Perot, PTA rep.
Marijke Gero, Teacher
Jane Malhotra, Parent
Cheryl Ohlson, Parent
Brenda Petteway, Acting Principal
Sunday, July 13, 2008
InTowner Op-Ed on Tenleytown Announcement
From the Publisher's Desk...
MAYORAL EFFORTS TO FREEZE OUT CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERS OUGHT ULTIMATELY TO BACKFIRE COME ELECTION TIME
Published: July 11th, 2008
On the same day we were getting ready to go to press and trying to decide what our topic for this space should be this month, we noticed that the Washington Post reporters who write the “District Notebook” feature which appears in the District Weekly section had picked up on an example of a truly bad way of conducting city business by the Office of the Mayor and its various satellites.
Specifically, what these reporters were exposing is what we here refer to as press release by stealth — that is, notices to the press about important matters that are to be publicly announced but not sent out until after business hours, or very late on a Friday or the day before a holiday. To that ruse we can also add the phenomenon of press releases informing of a public announcement event being sent out on the same day just hours before the event, thus ensuring a mad scramble at best but more likely not much in the way of attendance.
The writers cited some examples of bad news or controversial announcements which by having been slipped under the door after offices had closed for the weekend or holiday might go fairly unnoticed. The mayor’s spokesperson countered with some excuses about the need to get all sorts of different entities to sign off or the rush of business, etc. and also stated that, notwithstanding instances of short notice, reporters nevertheless always seem to be on top of things and either do show up or know to call and get what they need.
All of what the Mayor’s person says may or may not be true, but to us that is not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Those of us who work at keeping tabs on city government operations are not the ones as to which this press release by stealth is such an insidious development. It is how this tactic ensures that community leaders and individual citizen activists — and even just folk — who perform yeoman service in the call to keep close watch on the politicians and the bureaucracy (the press can’t do it all) are frozen out is what is so insidious. And that is what the Mayor and his minions are striving to achieve by this tactic.
An excellent case in point surfaced on the very morning that the “District Notebook” column appeared and on this very day we are writing our commentary. We refer to the nearly secret alert by email dispatched from the Office of the Mayor, with the subject line blank (!), at 7:52 a.m. for a 10:45 a.m. of a mayoral press conference in Tenleytown to announce the selection of the “public-private partnership” developer for the very controversial Janney School/Tenley Library site. That was only an advance notice of two hours and 53 minutes, assuming people were actually at their computer screens at that hour.
By putting out that announcement in such a stealthy manner it is clear to us that the intention was to ensure that concerned citizens would have been totally unaware that the public announcement event had been suddenly moved back one full day; everyone had been under the impression that it was to be midday the next day — Friday (bad enough, since right before the start of a summer weekend). Ironically, as it turned out, thanks to one savvy neighbor getting wind of the change and a very effective neighborhood alert system, over 50 residents did show up to the obvious displeasure of the Mayor; almost no press was there, probably because reporters would likely have zapped the incoming email that bore no subject matter line.
Not only have Ward 3 school and library activists been up in arms about how they see the city administration going about the process to build a new school and new library as part of a residential and commercial complex, but so have ordinary residents.
(Not unlike what’s going down in Tenleytown, a similar deal for the West End Branch Library so outraged Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom residents about how that process was unfolding that they ultimately prevailed and the deal imploded. Both the West End and Tenleytown library controversies were the subject of an extensive report in this newspaper last year. See, “West End Library Site Transfer to EastBanc Controversy Now Part of Larger Issue About District’s Embrace of Public-Private Deals,” InTowner, September 2007, page 1.)
Shortly after the mayoral “dog and pony show” in Tenleytown the chair of the area’s Advisory neighborhood Commission (ANC 3E), Amy McVey, joined by Commissioner Anne Sullivan, issued a blistering condemnation in a well-articulated document titled, “Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site.” The full text is to be posted on the Commission’s website, www.anc3e.org, and we urge our readers to see it there. The concluding paragraph, especially, so mirrors our own views that we have taken the liberty of sharing it with our readership, as follows:
“The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown — about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals — echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.”
MAYORAL EFFORTS TO FREEZE OUT CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERS OUGHT ULTIMATELY TO BACKFIRE COME ELECTION TIME
Published: July 11th, 2008
On the same day we were getting ready to go to press and trying to decide what our topic for this space should be this month, we noticed that the Washington Post reporters who write the “District Notebook” feature which appears in the District Weekly section had picked up on an example of a truly bad way of conducting city business by the Office of the Mayor and its various satellites.
Specifically, what these reporters were exposing is what we here refer to as press release by stealth — that is, notices to the press about important matters that are to be publicly announced but not sent out until after business hours, or very late on a Friday or the day before a holiday. To that ruse we can also add the phenomenon of press releases informing of a public announcement event being sent out on the same day just hours before the event, thus ensuring a mad scramble at best but more likely not much in the way of attendance.
The writers cited some examples of bad news or controversial announcements which by having been slipped under the door after offices had closed for the weekend or holiday might go fairly unnoticed. The mayor’s spokesperson countered with some excuses about the need to get all sorts of different entities to sign off or the rush of business, etc. and also stated that, notwithstanding instances of short notice, reporters nevertheless always seem to be on top of things and either do show up or know to call and get what they need.
All of what the Mayor’s person says may or may not be true, but to us that is not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Those of us who work at keeping tabs on city government operations are not the ones as to which this press release by stealth is such an insidious development. It is how this tactic ensures that community leaders and individual citizen activists — and even just folk — who perform yeoman service in the call to keep close watch on the politicians and the bureaucracy (the press can’t do it all) are frozen out is what is so insidious. And that is what the Mayor and his minions are striving to achieve by this tactic.
An excellent case in point surfaced on the very morning that the “District Notebook” column appeared and on this very day we are writing our commentary. We refer to the nearly secret alert by email dispatched from the Office of the Mayor, with the subject line blank (!), at 7:52 a.m. for a 10:45 a.m. of a mayoral press conference in Tenleytown to announce the selection of the “public-private partnership” developer for the very controversial Janney School/Tenley Library site. That was only an advance notice of two hours and 53 minutes, assuming people were actually at their computer screens at that hour.
By putting out that announcement in such a stealthy manner it is clear to us that the intention was to ensure that concerned citizens would have been totally unaware that the public announcement event had been suddenly moved back one full day; everyone had been under the impression that it was to be midday the next day — Friday (bad enough, since right before the start of a summer weekend). Ironically, as it turned out, thanks to one savvy neighbor getting wind of the change and a very effective neighborhood alert system, over 50 residents did show up to the obvious displeasure of the Mayor; almost no press was there, probably because reporters would likely have zapped the incoming email that bore no subject matter line.
Not only have Ward 3 school and library activists been up in arms about how they see the city administration going about the process to build a new school and new library as part of a residential and commercial complex, but so have ordinary residents.
(Not unlike what’s going down in Tenleytown, a similar deal for the West End Branch Library so outraged Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom residents about how that process was unfolding that they ultimately prevailed and the deal imploded. Both the West End and Tenleytown library controversies were the subject of an extensive report in this newspaper last year. See, “West End Library Site Transfer to EastBanc Controversy Now Part of Larger Issue About District’s Embrace of Public-Private Deals,” InTowner, September 2007, page 1.)
Shortly after the mayoral “dog and pony show” in Tenleytown the chair of the area’s Advisory neighborhood Commission (ANC 3E), Amy McVey, joined by Commissioner Anne Sullivan, issued a blistering condemnation in a well-articulated document titled, “Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site.” The full text is to be posted on the Commission’s website, www.anc3e.org, and we urge our readers to see it there. The concluding paragraph, especially, so mirrors our own views that we have taken the liberty of sharing it with our readership, as follows:
“The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown — about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals — echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.”
Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site
[[This is the text of a press release I sent out Thursday afternoon to give journalists another perspective on Fenty's announcement (and DMPED's press release) that morning.]]
In an unpublicized press conference, whose date and time were changed in the early morning hours, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his decision to pursue a public-private redevelopment project involving the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School, located at the southwest corner of Wisconsin Avenue and Albemarle Street in Tenleytown. No representative from DCPS – neither from Michelle Rhee’s office nor from Allen Lew’s -- was standing by his side with representatives from LCOR, the private development company chosen for the project. DC Chief Librarian, Ginnie Cooper and John Hill, President of the Library Board of Trustees, were also absent, although DCPL Construction Manager Jeff Bonvechio was called to the microphone to affirm that the library would work with the Deputy Mayor’s office and its chosen developer. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh was present to lend her (somewhat equivocal) support, but, when questioned, she acknowledged that she had not seen LCOR’s best and final offer.
Local activists speculate the Fenty kept the press conference under wraps because he knew that his announcement would be greeted with outrage, both because it violates the “model process” DMPED promised, in the wake of the West End debacle, to use for the disposition of public land and because, once the community saw the proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the site, neighborhood opposition to a joint project quickly became overwhelming. Previously, the community had been divided over whether a public-private redevelopment option was worth exploring. But once residents saw the proposals, many people who had previously been either supportive of, or undecided about, a joint public-private redevelopment of this site became convinced that the costs to the school and library were too great and that the community would not realize any benefit from using public land for this purpose. The Janney School SIT/LSRT (a parent-teacher organization that deals with facilities issues) rejected all three proposals that emerged from the RFP, including the LCOR’s submission which, according to Mayor Fenty, was the basis for today’s selection. In short, opposition to the project became near-unanimous once the community saw what a public-private joint venture would look like in practice.
In February 2008, Fenty promised the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, a local civic association that the project would not go forward without the support of the community. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, who rejected the ANC’s request for community representation on the RFP selection panel, had repeatedly promised that the community would “get another bite of the apple” – a chance to see and comment upon the selection panel’s recommendation – before any decision was made. Both those promises were broken today, a point made repeatedly by a number of angry residents who attended the press conference. They pointed out that the community had overwhelming opposed this project, citing not only the ANC’s stance, but resolutions from six different local civic associations and emails from nearly 100 individuals, calling for the public-private development option to be rejected. Not a single local organization offered its support for any of the three submissions received in response to the RFP.
“It’s like a cruel joke,” said Sue Hemberger who has served on an ANC special committee that has been studying the project since last May. “The community has spent a year working with DCPL on a design, DCPL has spent over a million dollars on the project and is two steps away from ground-breaking, both the community and the Commission on Fine Arts have praised the library’s design, and now DMPED steps in and stops the project dead in its tracks.” Community members question why Neil Albert has been given the right to put public land that is in active use – this is DCPS’s most overcrowded elementary school and it was one of the busiest branch libraries – on the auction block without the consent of the Council or the agency involved. They point out that, under the LEAD Act, very different process has been legally mandated for decisionmaking regarding public-private development projects that involve the use of the library system’s land and/or associated development rights.
“From a public facilities standpoint, we’re getting less, we’re getting it later, and we’re paying more. It’s insane,“ said ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan. “Building an apartment building on this site guarantees that DCPS’s educational specifications for playground and sports facilities cannot be met on Janney’s campus. The kids will lose. ”
Neighbors point out that one block north of the site, at Wisconsin and Brandywine, there is a residential project that has gone unbuilt for years now because there’s no market for the units. There’s no shortage of underdeveloped privately owned land in this area that could be used for multifamily residential construction which leads them to question the need to devote public land – including the elementary school’s soccer field – to residential development.
But this particular project is especially attractive to developers because it will be heavily subsidized. The RFP for the project offered respondents the capital funds already allocated to rebuild the library and to expand the school and all three respondents asked for additional subsidies for the project in the form of a TIF or PILOT bonds. This means that the developer awarded this deal gets two public works construction contracts (with profit already built in) as well as the use of valuable public land and probably some tax breaks and reduced financing costs for construction loans. On top of that, the developers hope to charge the city both to build public parking underground (an expense that wouldn’t otherwise be necessary) and to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.
The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown – about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals – echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.
In an unpublicized press conference, whose date and time were changed in the early morning hours, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his decision to pursue a public-private redevelopment project involving the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School, located at the southwest corner of Wisconsin Avenue and Albemarle Street in Tenleytown. No representative from DCPS – neither from Michelle Rhee’s office nor from Allen Lew’s -- was standing by his side with representatives from LCOR, the private development company chosen for the project. DC Chief Librarian, Ginnie Cooper and John Hill, President of the Library Board of Trustees, were also absent, although DCPL Construction Manager Jeff Bonvechio was called to the microphone to affirm that the library would work with the Deputy Mayor’s office and its chosen developer. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh was present to lend her (somewhat equivocal) support, but, when questioned, she acknowledged that she had not seen LCOR’s best and final offer.
Local activists speculate the Fenty kept the press conference under wraps because he knew that his announcement would be greeted with outrage, both because it violates the “model process” DMPED promised, in the wake of the West End debacle, to use for the disposition of public land and because, once the community saw the proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the site, neighborhood opposition to a joint project quickly became overwhelming. Previously, the community had been divided over whether a public-private redevelopment option was worth exploring. But once residents saw the proposals, many people who had previously been either supportive of, or undecided about, a joint public-private redevelopment of this site became convinced that the costs to the school and library were too great and that the community would not realize any benefit from using public land for this purpose. The Janney School SIT/LSRT (a parent-teacher organization that deals with facilities issues) rejected all three proposals that emerged from the RFP, including the LCOR’s submission which, according to Mayor Fenty, was the basis for today’s selection. In short, opposition to the project became near-unanimous once the community saw what a public-private joint venture would look like in practice.
In February 2008, Fenty promised the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, a local civic association that the project would not go forward without the support of the community. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, who rejected the ANC’s request for community representation on the RFP selection panel, had repeatedly promised that the community would “get another bite of the apple” – a chance to see and comment upon the selection panel’s recommendation – before any decision was made. Both those promises were broken today, a point made repeatedly by a number of angry residents who attended the press conference. They pointed out that the community had overwhelming opposed this project, citing not only the ANC’s stance, but resolutions from six different local civic associations and emails from nearly 100 individuals, calling for the public-private development option to be rejected. Not a single local organization offered its support for any of the three submissions received in response to the RFP.
“It’s like a cruel joke,” said Sue Hemberger who has served on an ANC special committee that has been studying the project since last May. “The community has spent a year working with DCPL on a design, DCPL has spent over a million dollars on the project and is two steps away from ground-breaking, both the community and the Commission on Fine Arts have praised the library’s design, and now DMPED steps in and stops the project dead in its tracks.” Community members question why Neil Albert has been given the right to put public land that is in active use – this is DCPS’s most overcrowded elementary school and it was one of the busiest branch libraries – on the auction block without the consent of the Council or the agency involved. They point out that, under the LEAD Act, very different process has been legally mandated for decisionmaking regarding public-private development projects that involve the use of the library system’s land and/or associated development rights.
“From a public facilities standpoint, we’re getting less, we’re getting it later, and we’re paying more. It’s insane,“ said ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan. “Building an apartment building on this site guarantees that DCPS’s educational specifications for playground and sports facilities cannot be met on Janney’s campus. The kids will lose. ”
Neighbors point out that one block north of the site, at Wisconsin and Brandywine, there is a residential project that has gone unbuilt for years now because there’s no market for the units. There’s no shortage of underdeveloped privately owned land in this area that could be used for multifamily residential construction which leads them to question the need to devote public land – including the elementary school’s soccer field – to residential development.
But this particular project is especially attractive to developers because it will be heavily subsidized. The RFP for the project offered respondents the capital funds already allocated to rebuild the library and to expand the school and all three respondents asked for additional subsidies for the project in the form of a TIF or PILOT bonds. This means that the developer awarded this deal gets two public works construction contracts (with profit already built in) as well as the use of valuable public land and probably some tax breaks and reduced financing costs for construction loans. On top of that, the developers hope to charge the city both to build public parking underground (an expense that wouldn’t otherwise be necessary) and to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.
The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown – about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals – echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Why Janney Shouldn't Have to Give Up ANY of its Land for Private Use
Originally, the logic behind the public-private project (PPP) was that Janney Elementary School would receive more and better public facilities sooner if it partnered with a private developer and DCPL to redevelop the Wisconsin and Albemarle site. But as the RFP submissions indicated, the outcome is more likely to be fewer facilities later -- not only for the library, but for the school as well. In response to those submissions, the Janney LSRT (aka SIT) has attempted to draw a line in the sand -- it does not want to see more than 12,000 SF of Janney's land (the size of the teachers' parking lot) devoted to private development. But that position cedes too much.
1. The objective in undertaking this project shouldn't be "preservation of green space" but "provision of facilities." Just as Janney needs to double its interior instructional space to relieve overcrowding, so, too, does it need to expand its exterior programmatic space (PE field and playgrounds) to meet the need of its students as defined by DCPS's own educational specifications. Obviously, current specifications didn't exist when Janney was originally built, but DCPS's policy is to build to these specifications, where possible, whenever an older campus undergoes modernization. "Where possible" is the crucial qualifier here -- if a part of the campus is dedicated to another use (e.g. private residential development) prior to this renovation, "what's possible" changes. DCPS will work with whatever land is left over rather than the whole campus.
Even without a residential building in the mix, it will take careful planning to find a way to fit all of the requisite facilities on Janney's campus. Janney's entire lot is 3.29 acres and the exterior programmatic spaces called for in the ed specs would consume about 2 acres of land (not including buffers and passageways). The main school building is historic and it's set back from the street. This will probably mean that we can't raise the roof and we may not be able to build out toward Albemarle either. So the design challenge is to figure out how to put another building, approximately the size of the current one, on campus and still have 2 acres of usable land left over. To achieve this, existing land will have to be used more efficiently (e.g. the teacher's parking lot would not remain in its current form). Decrease the amount of land available (by devoting it to non-educational uses), and it will be physically impossible to provide all such facilities.
2. It doesn't make sense to compare what exists now to what a PPP will provide -- or to assume that the un- or under-utilized land on Janney's campus is surplus. It's land currently available (and necessary) for providing educational facilities. The relevant benchmark for assessing whether Janney is better off with a PPP is a DCPS renovation/expansion that uses the entire existing campus to meet current educational specifications.
3. Janney already has less land per student than 2/3 of all DCPS elementary schools. And that's before the school's capacity is increased to 550 students (approximately 65 more kids than are currently enrolled). It makes no sense to shrink the campus while expanding the student body.
4. Certainly, there are some DCPS elementary schools that are already worse off than Janney would be post-PPP. Most were built in the 19th century in already densely-populated areas like Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, or downtown at a time when land was scarce and schools consisted primarily of large classrooms and desks. Do we want to turn back the clock or move forward?
5. There is, of course, one quite recent example of a land-starved DCPS elementary school campus. That's Oyster -- the product of a public-private partnership (with LCOR, in fact). The school lost over an acre of its land to an apartment building and, as a result, now has a tiny playground and no field or green space. What's more, Oyster was seriously overcrowded within two years of its reconstruction. Don't assume that DCPS won't enter into a PPP without ensuring that the project will meet the school's immediate and long-term facilities needs. History tells us otherwise and, thus far, DCPS has been only minimally engaged in this PPP process.
6. While Oyster was, arguably, the product of a desperate time that called for desperate measures, DCPS now has a dedicated funding source for school modernizations and a separate Office of Public Education Facilities Management, headed by Allen Lew who has an excellent track record on other facilities projects and who, in less than a year working with DCPS, has already achieved dramatic results. The city has the resources -- both financial and organizational -- to get this project done without sacrificing public land to private development.
7. Nor has DCPS demanded that other schools sacrifice land in order to merit remodernization. Key Elementary, in Palisades, was expanded and remodernized in 2003, at a time when it had only 200 students (vs. 485) on a campus that was almost as large as Janney's (3.17 acres) but the full campus was devoted to the school. Stoddert Elementary has twice as much land as Janney and half the students. Yet its excess land won't be devoted to apartments or condos -- instead, the city is using to build a rec center that will provide sports, arts, and performance space for the school as well as the community. Other successful schools in affluent parts of DC with more available land have not been required to give up part of their campus in order to secure the educational facilities to which they are entitled.
8. Those of you familiar with Lafayette Elementary's campus might also be reminded that, for some schools, campus size tells only part of the story. Adjacent location of recreational centers expands the sports and playground facilities available to the school. Our community's recreational facilities (at Fort Reno and Turtle Park) are too far away from Janney to serve as a resource for the school. That's why adequate playground and field space on campus is so important.
9. Janney's exterior facilities serve not only the school, but the community. In previous closures (e.g. of the old Hardy campus in Palisades), fields and playgrounds remained in the public domain even when the school building itself was leased and they remain in constant use by neighbors, sports clubs, other schools, etc. It would be ironic if the Council decided that the playground and sports facilities of underutilized schools now being closed could not be sold off but must revert to community use while simultaneously authorizing the sale or lease of land devoted to the same use at an overcrowded school. Yet that's where we're headed with this PPP.
10. Note that all of the comparisons made thus far have been to other DCPS elementary schools and to DCPS's own facilities standards. Thus the claim that people who want to preserve Janney's existing campus for educational use are unrealistic about what's possible in the city and/or have a suburban mentality is bunk. Janney's campus is just over 3 acres. When Montgomery County sets out to build a new elementary school, it looks for a 12 acre site. Even an older, close-in MoCo school like Bethesda Elementary has a 7.5 acre campus and serves 100 fewer students than Janney will post-expansion.
The argument that the site's proximity to a Metrorail station requires that it be devoted to high-density mixed-use development is equally disingenuous. First, the development adjacent to the Tenleytown station is already mixed-use -- residential, retail, office, and institutional uses are all represented in the immediate vicinity. And the block that houses Janney Elementary is already high-density -- there are 800 students and teachers there each weekday and 1000 parishioners each weekend. But, more importantly, if the policy objective is to decrease automobile-dependency by encouraging more people to live near public transit, then depriving Metro-accessible schools (and neighborhoods) of sports facilities and playgrounds is counterproductive. It tells families that the best way to ensure that their childrens' schools will have decent athletic and recreational facilities is to move away from transit hubs.
I've included a few google maps to illustrate what's at stake here. They're all set to the same scale for ease of comparison, but you can zoom in or out to study the sites.
Stoddert:
View Larger Map
Lafayette:
View Larger Map
Janney:
Remember that the Janney campus doesn't include the library building (upper right hand corner) and that the southern edge of the campus is sort of a lopsided V. To find the property line, start at the the driveway that runs between St. Ann's and the library and follow it down past the teachers' parking lot and then up again along the backyards of the neighboring houses on 42nd St.
View Larger Map
Oyster:
(The school is the square at the bottom left of the image; its playspace is along the top edge. The larger rectangle to its right was formerly campus land, but now belongs to a privately-owned corporate-suites type apartment building whose owners will soon enjoy a 20+ year property tax break because their PILOT was tied to the cost of repaying the school's construction bond rather than to the value of their own building.)
View Larger Map
1. The objective in undertaking this project shouldn't be "preservation of green space" but "provision of facilities." Just as Janney needs to double its interior instructional space to relieve overcrowding, so, too, does it need to expand its exterior programmatic space (PE field and playgrounds) to meet the need of its students as defined by DCPS's own educational specifications. Obviously, current specifications didn't exist when Janney was originally built, but DCPS's policy is to build to these specifications, where possible, whenever an older campus undergoes modernization. "Where possible" is the crucial qualifier here -- if a part of the campus is dedicated to another use (e.g. private residential development) prior to this renovation, "what's possible" changes. DCPS will work with whatever land is left over rather than the whole campus.
Even without a residential building in the mix, it will take careful planning to find a way to fit all of the requisite facilities on Janney's campus. Janney's entire lot is 3.29 acres and the exterior programmatic spaces called for in the ed specs would consume about 2 acres of land (not including buffers and passageways). The main school building is historic and it's set back from the street. This will probably mean that we can't raise the roof and we may not be able to build out toward Albemarle either. So the design challenge is to figure out how to put another building, approximately the size of the current one, on campus and still have 2 acres of usable land left over. To achieve this, existing land will have to be used more efficiently (e.g. the teacher's parking lot would not remain in its current form). Decrease the amount of land available (by devoting it to non-educational uses), and it will be physically impossible to provide all such facilities.
2. It doesn't make sense to compare what exists now to what a PPP will provide -- or to assume that the un- or under-utilized land on Janney's campus is surplus. It's land currently available (and necessary) for providing educational facilities. The relevant benchmark for assessing whether Janney is better off with a PPP is a DCPS renovation/expansion that uses the entire existing campus to meet current educational specifications.
3. Janney already has less land per student than 2/3 of all DCPS elementary schools. And that's before the school's capacity is increased to 550 students (approximately 65 more kids than are currently enrolled). It makes no sense to shrink the campus while expanding the student body.
4. Certainly, there are some DCPS elementary schools that are already worse off than Janney would be post-PPP. Most were built in the 19th century in already densely-populated areas like Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, or downtown at a time when land was scarce and schools consisted primarily of large classrooms and desks. Do we want to turn back the clock or move forward?
5. There is, of course, one quite recent example of a land-starved DCPS elementary school campus. That's Oyster -- the product of a public-private partnership (with LCOR, in fact). The school lost over an acre of its land to an apartment building and, as a result, now has a tiny playground and no field or green space. What's more, Oyster was seriously overcrowded within two years of its reconstruction. Don't assume that DCPS won't enter into a PPP without ensuring that the project will meet the school's immediate and long-term facilities needs. History tells us otherwise and, thus far, DCPS has been only minimally engaged in this PPP process.
6. While Oyster was, arguably, the product of a desperate time that called for desperate measures, DCPS now has a dedicated funding source for school modernizations and a separate Office of Public Education Facilities Management, headed by Allen Lew who has an excellent track record on other facilities projects and who, in less than a year working with DCPS, has already achieved dramatic results. The city has the resources -- both financial and organizational -- to get this project done without sacrificing public land to private development.
7. Nor has DCPS demanded that other schools sacrifice land in order to merit remodernization. Key Elementary, in Palisades, was expanded and remodernized in 2003, at a time when it had only 200 students (vs. 485) on a campus that was almost as large as Janney's (3.17 acres) but the full campus was devoted to the school. Stoddert Elementary has twice as much land as Janney and half the students. Yet its excess land won't be devoted to apartments or condos -- instead, the city is using to build a rec center that will provide sports, arts, and performance space for the school as well as the community. Other successful schools in affluent parts of DC with more available land have not been required to give up part of their campus in order to secure the educational facilities to which they are entitled.
8. Those of you familiar with Lafayette Elementary's campus might also be reminded that, for some schools, campus size tells only part of the story. Adjacent location of recreational centers expands the sports and playground facilities available to the school. Our community's recreational facilities (at Fort Reno and Turtle Park) are too far away from Janney to serve as a resource for the school. That's why adequate playground and field space on campus is so important.
9. Janney's exterior facilities serve not only the school, but the community. In previous closures (e.g. of the old Hardy campus in Palisades), fields and playgrounds remained in the public domain even when the school building itself was leased and they remain in constant use by neighbors, sports clubs, other schools, etc. It would be ironic if the Council decided that the playground and sports facilities of underutilized schools now being closed could not be sold off but must revert to community use while simultaneously authorizing the sale or lease of land devoted to the same use at an overcrowded school. Yet that's where we're headed with this PPP.
10. Note that all of the comparisons made thus far have been to other DCPS elementary schools and to DCPS's own facilities standards. Thus the claim that people who want to preserve Janney's existing campus for educational use are unrealistic about what's possible in the city and/or have a suburban mentality is bunk. Janney's campus is just over 3 acres. When Montgomery County sets out to build a new elementary school, it looks for a 12 acre site. Even an older, close-in MoCo school like Bethesda Elementary has a 7.5 acre campus and serves 100 fewer students than Janney will post-expansion.
The argument that the site's proximity to a Metrorail station requires that it be devoted to high-density mixed-use development is equally disingenuous. First, the development adjacent to the Tenleytown station is already mixed-use -- residential, retail, office, and institutional uses are all represented in the immediate vicinity. And the block that houses Janney Elementary is already high-density -- there are 800 students and teachers there each weekday and 1000 parishioners each weekend. But, more importantly, if the policy objective is to decrease automobile-dependency by encouraging more people to live near public transit, then depriving Metro-accessible schools (and neighborhoods) of sports facilities and playgrounds is counterproductive. It tells families that the best way to ensure that their childrens' schools will have decent athletic and recreational facilities is to move away from transit hubs.
I've included a few google maps to illustrate what's at stake here. They're all set to the same scale for ease of comparison, but you can zoom in or out to study the sites.
Stoddert:
View Larger Map
Lafayette:
View Larger Map
Janney:
Remember that the Janney campus doesn't include the library building (upper right hand corner) and that the southern edge of the campus is sort of a lopsided V. To find the property line, start at the the driveway that runs between St. Ann's and the library and follow it down past the teachers' parking lot and then up again along the backyards of the neighboring houses on 42nd St.
View Larger Map
Oyster:
(The school is the square at the bottom left of the image; its playspace is along the top edge. The larger rectangle to its right was formerly campus land, but now belongs to a privately-owned corporate-suites type apartment building whose owners will soon enjoy a 20+ year property tax break because their PILOT was tied to the cost of repaying the school's construction bond rather than to the value of their own building.)
View Larger Map
Doug Wonderlic's "Viewpoint" piece on the RFP
Tenley library project shouldn’t be slowed
THE NORTHWEST CURRENT
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008; page 11
by Doug Wonderlic
I urge library patrons and Janney Elementary School parents — both current and prospective — to insist on the immediate suspension of the public-private partnership effort for Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and Janney. As reported by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E at its May 8 meeting, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development is moving quickly to select a developer. After initially removing the library from the development mix, the deputy mayor’s office has now changed its mind and added the library back in.
Without a public-private partnership, the D.C. Public Library system has produced a library design praised by the Commission of Fine Arts as “a very strong concept,” “a building the whole neighborhood will be proud of” and “an extremely intelligent and wonderful design.” This creative design was achieved through true competition. More than two dozen library design architects submitted their qualifications for this project. The design competition was open to all of the best library architects in the country, not to development teams that could offer the best deal.
If the deputy mayor’s office does not interfere, construction of the new library will also involve true competition. This project will be put out to bid in the next few months based on 100 percent construction documents and will likely attract a large number of interested contractors, all bidding on exactly the same detailed design. The community has benefited and will continue to benefit from clarity and competition throughout planning, design and construction. As a result, the entire library process will inspire community confidence.
The library system has met all of its deadlines for planning and design, and it is on track to produce a beautiful and distinctive library by March 2010. Any delays now will add significant costs to construction and once again defer the day when our community enjoys its new library. The library site is small, but in the hands of its creative design team it can accommodate a library building that aesthetically and practically will become a symbol of Tenleytown and its love of learning. Library patrons and the Tenleytown community should not settle for anything less.
I recommend that Janney parents adopt the successful library model and insist on the same clarity and competition in producing school improvements. Only then will there be community confidence. To date, we have seen only a vague process. The city’s request-for-proposals process was intentionally vague and has become even murkier with constant changes in the requirements. The lack of clarity in the public-private partnership procedure has produced minimal competition in attracting developers. Compared to the process used by library officials, proposals from the three developers show little evidence that robust competition will be achieved in either the design or construction of school improvements, and little evidence that any of the developers will be able to complete their obligations in a timely manner.
Now is the time to stop the public-private partnership fiasco and allow Janney to proceed with proper planning. Currently, officials are pushing a hurried deal to take Janney’s land before Janney determines its students’ future needs. Proper planning involves an objective assessment of both facility and openspace needs for the school, determined through a formal educational specifications report. Such planning can lead to true competition in both the design and construction of school improvements
In conclusion, the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library should be a stand-alone building, enabling it to serve as a much-needed visual symbol for the Tenleytown community. The costly and time-consuming public-private partnership effort should be suspended. The city should provide Janney Elementary with funds to prepare an educational specifications report. Then Janney should decide its own future without the pressure of an unnecessary and artificial deadline.
Doug Wonderlic is a retired facilities planner and a Tenleytown resident.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
WBJ Article on DCPL's opposition to PPP
Libraries held up by D.C.'s smart-growth ambitions
Washington Business Journal
Friday, May 2, 2008
by Jonathan O'Connell, Staff Reporter
In many respects, the Tenleytown and Benning neighborhoods couldn't be farther apart. The former is in wealthy upper Northwest, while the latter is in the second-poorest part of town in Northeast.
But the two communities have this in common: Neither has a permanent library. Libraries in both neighborhoods closed in December 2004 and were later demolished, replaced only by temporary facilities. Both also had their rebuilding plans delayed by ideas to leverage their prime locations near Metro stations and commercial corridors, plans intended to bring more vibrancy to those neighborhoods than libraries alone could.
In Tenleytown, the library has been moved in and out -- and now back in again -- to a larger project that would bring housing and a rebuilt Janney Elementary School to Wisconsin Avenue. On Benning Road, a private developer and a D.C. Council member say they think the library would make sense as part of a redeveloped shopping center.
Both suggestions threaten to further delay construction of the new 20,000-square-foot libraries, said John Hill, president of the D.C. Libraries Board of Trustees. The library system planned to break ground on both projects in July, but is just beginning to procure construction contracts, threatening a proposed March 2010 reopening date.
Those communities have been made to wait too long for new library services, Hill said, and the delays absorb money intended for other renovations. "If these projects get delayed significantly then it affects our capacity to begin other projects," he said.
The Tenley and Benning libraries are among four set to be rebuilt, along with branches in Anacostia and Shaw. All four are fully funded, at between $14.7 million and $16.1 million per branch, and $18 million has been set aside for the Georgetown library, which fell to fire in April 2007.
But Tenley and Benning have been caught up in the movement to build mixed-use projects at underutilized Metro stations. That ought be a priority, Hill acknowledged, which is why Neil Albert, deputy mayor for economic development, included the Tenley library in soliciting bids for a 3.6-acre parcel across from the street from the Tenleytown-American University Metro station. After three teams made proposals, Albert altered the solicitation to allow for an independently built library, but reversed course again recently in seeking final offers that include the library. No team has been chosen, although Albert had planned to make a selection in February. "I do understand the urgency, but I want to make sure we maximize that particular site," said Eric Scott, project manager.
On Benning Road, developer D.C.-based City Interests LLC has proposed adding 10,000 square feet to the new library and moving it into a redeveloped East River Park shopping center -- a plan that Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, D-Ward 7, said she likes, even though it would probably further delay that library for another six months. "My preference would be to optimize the design of the library by incorporating it with the development," Alexander said.
Hill, also president of the Federal City Council, and Ginnie Cooper, chief librarian, want shovels in the ground. Hill said the library board will look at building its Tenley library in a way that allows housing to be added on top later, once the deputy mayor selects a development plan. Otherwise, he said the delays mean the project "is going to take much, much longer."
"We're not going to stop moving because an individual council member tells us we should slow down or we should stop," Hill said. "That's not any kind of due process."
"We're on a pretty good site now," Cooper said of the library's Benning parcel. "It's an attractive site, and we are hoping to stay there."
E-mail: joconnell@bizjournals.com Phone: 703/258-0835
© American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
Washington Business Journal
Friday, May 2, 2008
by Jonathan O'Connell, Staff Reporter
In many respects, the Tenleytown and Benning neighborhoods couldn't be farther apart. The former is in wealthy upper Northwest, while the latter is in the second-poorest part of town in Northeast.
But the two communities have this in common: Neither has a permanent library. Libraries in both neighborhoods closed in December 2004 and were later demolished, replaced only by temporary facilities. Both also had their rebuilding plans delayed by ideas to leverage their prime locations near Metro stations and commercial corridors, plans intended to bring more vibrancy to those neighborhoods than libraries alone could.
In Tenleytown, the library has been moved in and out -- and now back in again -- to a larger project that would bring housing and a rebuilt Janney Elementary School to Wisconsin Avenue. On Benning Road, a private developer and a D.C. Council member say they think the library would make sense as part of a redeveloped shopping center.
Both suggestions threaten to further delay construction of the new 20,000-square-foot libraries, said John Hill, president of the D.C. Libraries Board of Trustees. The library system planned to break ground on both projects in July, but is just beginning to procure construction contracts, threatening a proposed March 2010 reopening date.
Those communities have been made to wait too long for new library services, Hill said, and the delays absorb money intended for other renovations. "If these projects get delayed significantly then it affects our capacity to begin other projects," he said.
The Tenley and Benning libraries are among four set to be rebuilt, along with branches in Anacostia and Shaw. All four are fully funded, at between $14.7 million and $16.1 million per branch, and $18 million has been set aside for the Georgetown library, which fell to fire in April 2007.
But Tenley and Benning have been caught up in the movement to build mixed-use projects at underutilized Metro stations. That ought be a priority, Hill acknowledged, which is why Neil Albert, deputy mayor for economic development, included the Tenley library in soliciting bids for a 3.6-acre parcel across from the street from the Tenleytown-American University Metro station. After three teams made proposals, Albert altered the solicitation to allow for an independently built library, but reversed course again recently in seeking final offers that include the library. No team has been chosen, although Albert had planned to make a selection in February. "I do understand the urgency, but I want to make sure we maximize that particular site," said Eric Scott, project manager.
On Benning Road, developer D.C.-based City Interests LLC has proposed adding 10,000 square feet to the new library and moving it into a redeveloped East River Park shopping center -- a plan that Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, D-Ward 7, said she likes, even though it would probably further delay that library for another six months. "My preference would be to optimize the design of the library by incorporating it with the development," Alexander said.
Hill, also president of the Federal City Council, and Ginnie Cooper, chief librarian, want shovels in the ground. Hill said the library board will look at building its Tenley library in a way that allows housing to be added on top later, once the deputy mayor selects a development plan. Otherwise, he said the delays mean the project "is going to take much, much longer."
"We're not going to stop moving because an individual council member tells us we should slow down or we should stop," Hill said. "That's not any kind of due process."
"We're on a pretty good site now," Cooper said of the library's Benning parcel. "It's an attractive site, and we are hoping to stay there."
E-mail: joconnell@bizjournals.com Phone: 703/258-0835
© American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)