In
your article about the 2900 Clarendon Boulevard
project
in Arlington ("Building
a Better Place," February 10, 2003), you
state: "Despite some contentious public
hearings - a number of neighbors fought the project
- [the developer] won [the government's]
approval." and "Although 2900 Clarendon
stirs the fears of neighborhood NIMBYs, mostly home
owners in single-family dwellings who fear dense
development of any kind near them, everyone else in
the Washington metro area should hail DeCamp as a
hero."
You also state: "Delays inherent in the
system
- negotiating with the county, negotiating with
the
NIMBYs, negotiating with leasing agents - can
stretch
out the development time-frame from five years
to
ten. DeCamp had a taste of [this]. His team made
diligent
efforts to involve the community in his
project
planning early on. Regardless, vocal
opposition
surfaced during the approval process and
pressured
him into making significant concessions.
Still,
DeCamp and his associates passed through the
fire
and 2900 Clarendon remains financially viable."
I
am very distressed to think that you would publish
such
things without (apparently) seeking any comment
from
these so-called "NIMBY" neighbors. I would
note
that
the Clarendon-Courthouse Civic Association, the
Arlington
neighborhood in which this project is
proposed,
overwhelmingly SUPPORTED the project when it
went
before the County Board for final approval.
Both
our single-family homeowners and our high-rise
residents
agreed that the final project would be an
asset
to our neighborhood. In the end, what citizen
opposition
remaining on this project came from some
homeowners
from neighborhoods much farther away.
Furthermore,
the public process you so criticize is
largely
responsible for the success of the final
design.
The towering abomination first proposed to us
by
DeCamp and his partners bore no almost no
resemblance
to the project you extol in your article.
Of
the elements you specifically praise in your
article,
the (1) division into two blocks, (2) street
trees
(3) wide sidewalks, (4) extension of the sidewalk
to
the whole block, (5) underground parking, (6) the
open
courtyard and fountain, (7) metered spaces around
the
edge of the site, (8) bicycle parking (9) showers
for
bike commuters, (10) multiple local retailers (as
opposed
to one huge chain store) and (11) a meaningful
mix
of residential and non-residential uses... were
all
insisted on by the County as conditions of
approval,
either because they were suggested by the
neighborhood or because they were required by
pre-existing county guidelines. Many others, not
cited in your article, were also the result of
community input.
To
their credit, Mr. DeCamp and his partners responded
with
imagination to many of these suggestions. But
they
also bitterly fought on others.
Ultimately,
our community urged the County Board to
approve
this project in EXCESS of the density that
would
otherwise be permitted by law for the reasons
given
above and because it contained a contribution to
our
neighborhood's affordable housing stock. Had Mr.
DeCamp
and his partners chosen to redevelop this
parcel
without consulting the community (and without
many
of the 11 elements you refer to above) the law
would
have entitled them to roughly half of the
density
they ultimately were able to build. This
would
have been a loss for all involved.
I
agree with you when you say "Virginia needs to
figure
out how to build more neighborhoods like
Clarendon,
which cater to knowledge workers'
lifestyles,
cultural preferences and desire for
stimulation
and personal interaction." If they listen
to
the neighbors in our civic association -- rather
than
dismissing us all as NIMBY's -- it will happen
more
often.
Peter
Owen
President
Clarendon-Courthouse
Civic Association
peterowenvirginia@yahoo.com
