Ever play that puzzle in Sunday's Washington Post Magazine where you have to find the difference between the actual photograph and the altered photograph? Well, here is the Shaw edition. Skill level: Easy.
The top original photograph is the Bundy School, located at 429 O Street NW (dark roof, bottom/center). Below it is what the block will look like after the government completes renovation of The Bundy school, which has been vacant since 2005ish (it served as a elementary school from 1867-1982, briefly served as a men's homeless shelter, and housed the Mental Retardation & Developmental: Disabilities Administration until recently). Safe Shores, a nonprofit organization that teams up with various social service agencies and MPD to counsel abused children, was set to move into the building by 2008. After substantial delay, they are close to completion - at least on the inside - so I am told.
After the renovation is complete, the area is likely to look like the second photograph, unless something changes. Can you find the differences?
You don't have to tune in next week to find the answer. The vacant lot in the rear of the Bundy School is currently owned by the federal government and is (or was) under the management of D.C.'s Department of Parks and Recreation, at least theoretically. Historic maps show the space designated as a "playground."
Rather than use this as an opportunity put a vacant eyesore to an attractive, sustainable, and vibrant use, the District plans to obtain ownership of the lot from the feds, then use it indefinitely as yet another surface parking lot. It will be vacant at night and on weekends and provide no benefit to the community.
As background, the MVSNA, back in early 2007, supported the relocation of
For instance, how about something like this -- parking for 10-12 visitors on the Bundy School lot, children's playground, tennis court, and dog park.
Posted By mike l / At 6/26/09 2:39 PM
Posted By Charles Walker / At 6/26/09 7:32 PM
First, dog owners and supporters of the petition, please step back and consider the perspective of an alleged 5 year-old victim of sexual abuse. This 5 year-old victim has been taken to the center for a forensic examination to determine to extent of the abuse. After this examination, this 5 year old victim receives ongoing services at the CAC.
Now consider the following 3 conclusions based on fact:
A. Fact 1: The multidisciplinary teams (police, child welfare workers, psychologist, and therapists) that operate out of child advocacy centers (CAC) are required by federal law. Fact 2: CAC are designed to be child-friendly, which includes confidential access (entry and exit) from the center. Fact 3: The design of the Bundy school CAC, including the parking allocation, was thoughtful and based on national, best-practice models. Fact 4: The limited supply of street parking will not fulfill the increased demand for parking once 2 events occure: (i) the new KIPP WILL school campus is completed and (ii) nearly 100 employees, volunteers, families and clients begin using the CAC.
Conclusion: Some in Shaw obviously do not care about providing *quality* services to abused and neglected children.
B. Fact 1: The Shaw community has a dog park at 11th and R street. The distance between this established dog and the proposed dog park would be 0.7 miles away. Fact 2: DPR develope dog parks. Fact 3: DPR has no management rights of the lot in question. Fact 4: DPR has management rights of the New Jersey and O Street NW park.
Conclusion: This petition for a dog park is not based on an objective, empirical *need* for a dog park. If there was a true *need* for a dog park, the folks petitioning for this lot to be a dog park would focus on the New Jersey and O Street park which is feet away from the lot in question.
C. Fact 1: The majority of abused and neglected children in the child welfare system are the black. Fact 2: The majority of those petition for a dog park are white. Fact 3: The proposed design of the petitioners makes uniformed assumptions about the parking need. Fact 4: The amenities in the petitioners' design is more thoughtful in regards to the purported needs of the dogs and less thoughtful in regards to the needs of the clients for a CAC based on best-practice and youth outcomes.
Conclusion: The child clients of the CAC are not a constituency that the dog park petitioners sincerely care about. If the dog park petitioners care about *quality* services, they would petition for a dog park in another location.
Posted By Natasha / At 6/27/09 6:02 AM
Posted By Natasha / At 6/27/09 6:09 AM
I'm not really passing any judgement here. I just feel there is a part of the story I haven't heard. That ballfield looks so neglected in the aerial shot. It also looks like it has more space than it needs. With the fight to program the space of this proposed parking I feel this adjacent green space is part of the story and it's untold.
Posted By Jason / At 6/27/09 6:21 AM
This is a land use issue. And land use decisions have long term implications for neighbors and communities. The community goal is reduction of surface parking. A surface parking lot is not the best use of the land and is, in fact, likely to be a detrimental use to neighbors and the community as a whole. Period. The site has excellent public transit access for employees, the District's own plans for the site indicate that a community use is preferred, and reducing surface parking in Shaw is supposed to be a priority of government and local groups alike.
Posted By Mary / At 6/27/09 7:21 AM
Is there a need for another tennis court for? Is there a need for another playground? Where are other playgrounds and tennis courts in the community? Where are the other green spaces and baseball parks in the neighborhood? When the KIPP school begin it's new construction and eliminated green space, did residents question that land usage? When green space was eliminated to construct the children's national medical center, did that community suggest that the parking lot be reduced for a dog park and tennis court?
The proposed design makes uniformed assumptions on how best to operate a national-model child advocacy center, whose operation is a federal law requirement and whose operation produces positive youth outcomes. Are dog parks and tennis courts required by federal law?
Mary makes good points as well, however it is a dog park vs. abused and neglected kids issue. I think you have to call a spade a spade on this issue. In regards to the long-term implications for neighbors and communities, are we not responsible as a community to ensure that abused and neglected children reach their full potential?
Posted By Natasha / At 6/27/09 7:55 AM
You make some good valid points in your ranting and raving but I stopped reading when you turned it into a race issue. You don't know me or my neighbors and it is vile and disgusting that you go there. Get off your high horse and learn how to debate without resorting to that crap. I love this city, it's citizens and mankind - black, white, red, yellow, blue, it does not matter the color of their skin. This is race baiting idiocy you are spouting and it's stupid.
The fact of the matter in this argument is that our government is proposing building a 100 car parking lot in our back yards and we are requesting input. Whether the end result is a parking lot, dog park, tennis court or big patch of grass is beyond the basic fact that we deserve the respect of consultation and input for what happens in our own neighborhood.
MVSNA leadership, CCCA leadership and ANC2C leadership (minus the woefully absent Kevin Chapple): thank you all for your leadership on this issue and I will be supporting you.
Posted By Nick F / At 6/27/09 12:28 PM
This is a land use issue. More surface parking lots are the last thing we need in Shaw, whatever their purpose. If Safe Shores had underground parking, this wouldn't be an issue. But a surface lot contributes to crime and underdevelopment. We don't need more vacant property in Shaw. What we should be doing is using vacant space for a positive, community-beneficial use. The concept above (i.e. playground, tennis court, dog park, and parking) is just to give a sense as to the potential for this site and amount of space and varied uses that could go on it with community input.
This back lot was (and maybe still is until the transfer goes through) federal land, but it is under the management of the DC Department of Parks and Recreation.
The 2006 Comprehensive Plan, which was developed with extensive community input, calls for both the Bundy School and lot to be put to residential and recreational use. It also calls for reducing surface parking lots in Shaw. The community supported Safe Shores moving into the building, but there are many that would like to see that back lot turned into something nicer than an immense parking lot.
I continue to be at a loss as to how 6-8 child clients per day, over an 8 hour period, need 60-100 parking spaces. Add in a few spaces for visiting police officers and social workers. There's still plenty of parking in the back without using the entire lot. What the parking lot appears to be for is employee parking. I'm not sure why the convenience of employees should take priority over making our neighborhood safer and better looking.
Regarding the ball field next door, it is used, though a bit underused. It is better maintained than it used to be (and may be reflected by the photo). Residents of Second NW Coop make use of it as well. It is under DC DPR ownership/management.
Again, the conceptual design above is just for discussion purposes to show what is possible in the space and highlight the need for community input to come up with a plan that meets the needs of both Safe Shores and the surrounding neighborhood. It doesn't need to be an immense parking lot. Nor does it need to be an huge dog park. But it can be made into something that is an asset to the neighborhood.
There are playgrounds nearby located at the New York Avenue Playground (1st and N) and the Kennedy Recreation Center. There was supposed to be one put in at the NJ/O Park, but it's never been funded. As for tennis courts, aside from a single court at the Kennedy Rec Center (which is always occupied on a nice day, if KRC is open) the closest is up at Howard University.
Posted By Cary Silverman / At 6/27/09 1:58 PM
Scroll down on the home page.
Posted By martin / At 6/27/09 2:31 PM
Scroll down on the home page.
Posted By martin / At 6/27/09 2:31 PM
Posted By John / At 6/27/09 3:13 PM
Aside from you, I have only seen documented push back from one (1) local citizen (who works in Mayor Fenty's Administation) and one (1) person working on an issue outside of her SMD on an issue which she has never organized a public meeing about with the people form Safe Shore, unlike Commissioner Chapple who organized such a meeting a couple years ago.
"Phantom" make believe opponents someone has met on the street, without names or real valid addresses in the community should not stack up against the hundreds of supportors of making the vacant lot into recreational space. Those names of real life human beings with actual addresses in Shaw have already been documented and submitted to the Mayor, the City Council, DPR and others.
Posted By martin / At 6/27/09 3:26 PM
What the neighborhood needs is people on the street. A dog park would bring a lot of people in the mornings and evenings and in turn make the neighborhood safer. A parking lot used from 9am to 5pm would do absolutely nothing for the neighborhood.
Posted By Mike / At 6/29/09 7:49 AM
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/czePDhadlH35miaypMplqw?authkey=Gv1sRgCLn5ndCxv9TI1QE&feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/saQV5sJXuPP9x0hO_O5OHA?authkey=Gv1sRgCLn5ndCxv9TI1QE&feat=directlink
Posted By martin / At 6/29/09 11:53 AM
