Is this “passive green space”? Flickr photo by FredoAlvarez.

The DC Council’s Committee of the Whole approved the Brookland Small Area Plan this morning. Technically, they just placed a resolution on the calendar to approve the plan, with some comments; the full Council will vote on the plan later today. However, after this vote, final passage is overwhelmingly likely. Update: The plan passed unanimously.

Chairman Vincent Gray emphasized that the Council doesn’t have the power to amend plans. Instead, they can only approve or reject them. However, they often include their comments in the committee report. Chairman Vincent Gray and Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. added a few such comments. None of them force changes for the plan, but rather clarify some neighborhood concerns and ask the Office of Planning to further work with the community on key issues.

One emphasizes that any future development under this plan will still have to go through the PUD process. In a PUD, the Zoning Commission reviews all aspects of a design, and arranges for certain community benefits such as funding for local nonprofits or space in the building for community uses. This plan doesn’t create any by-right development, but creates a “framework” for the Zoning Commission to evaluate future PUDs.

Some neighbors want shorter buildings around the Metro station than the plan recommends. Those people have a harder road to oppose such development, because the plan guides the Zoning Commission toward taller buildings in those areas. But at the same time, the plan also calls for stepped-down heights nearer residential development, which will guide the Zoning Commission away from taller buildings in other areas. And either way, neighbors and the ANC will have plenty of future opportunities to weigh in on specific development proposals.

Another amendment to the committee report calls for OP and DDOT to update the area’s transportation study by the end of 2010. The report asks OP to better clarify how to consolidate shuttle buses, which currently travel to Catholic, the Washington Hospital Center, and other locations. Shuttles could run more often and serve more people if they combined destinations, and with a lower volume of buses, we could transform the large traffic oval at the station into a public plaza and a real street grid.

Finally, Thomas introduced an amendment asking OP to study the possibility of purchasing the vacant lot adjacent to the Metro station, which some have started callind the “Brookland Common,” as “passive green space.” This amendment, like the others, doesn’t require the city to purchase this property. Doing so would almost certainly be cost prohibitive, especially given DC’s current dire budget constraints.

It’s too bad that Thomas used the term “passive green space,” however. Setting aside the question of whether the lot is really green or brown, “passive” space isn’t useful. It’s just empty space that makes a neighborhood more spread out. If it’s “passive”, people aren’t really taking advantage of the space. If we’re going to create a useful park, with benches, ball fields and a dog area, that’s one thing, though the neighborhood already has several of those. But “passively” leaving land unused isn’t right for a city, especially right next to a Metro station.

People whose houses or apartments overlook empty space tend to like “passive” spaces, of course, since they provide nicer views, while active parks might generate noise. One opponent wrote on the Brookland list that she would be able to see the proposed apartments from her window. So what? Our city’s policy shouldn’t prioritize preserving views to the exclusion of other policy aims, except key “monumental” viewsheds along major avenues toward the Capitol, Washington Monument, and other key landmarks. Being able to see the Metro station, at the expense of preventing other people from living in DC, making housing less affordable, and increasing crime, isn’t an inherent right.

Harriet Tregoning also sent the Council a letter, promising to keep working with the community on some key issues. They will help the ANC establish a Design Review Committee to evaluate and weigh in on future development proposals. They will study the 12th Street retail corridor and engage with merchants to find ways to revitalize that retail strip. And they will coordinate with the DC Department of Parks and Recreation to “identify creative funding opportunities for park improvements” to the neighborhood’s existing parks.

As Chairman Gray pointed out, the Office of Planning has spent an unprecedented amount of time and energy working with neighbors on this plan. And they have promised to keep working closely with the community. Some people love this plan. Others disagree very strongly. Either way, few DC agencies spend as much time and effort listening and collaborating as OP has done. This should serve as a model for good community outreach for other plans and other DC agencies.

David Alpert created Greater Greater Washington in 2008 and was its executive director until 2020. He formerly worked in tech and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco Bay, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He lives with his wife and two children in Dupont Circle.