Does ANC6c Show Us a Better Way to Resolution on the Hine Site?
by Larry Janezich
Ryan Velasco, former ANC6c07 Commissioner and former Chair of their Planning, Zoning, and Environment Committee posted a suggestion on newhilleast listserve from which the following is excerpted:
“I think ANC 6C has some valuable lessons learned in (community involvement in development projects). Specifically, I’m referring to the process supported by the Office of Planning, development teams, members of the community and civic organizations on several major projects along the H Street Corridor – all of which started out significantly worse than (the Hine) project. That process facilitated a dialogue that sought to address design concerns from the community and from neighbors surrounding the site.
An external mediator with an architectural background was brought in to shepherd discussions. Having this objective perspective was key to success of the negotiations. Community feedback was translated into a redesign and the end result of that collaborative effort was a project most could tolerate (but shouldn’t we aim a little higher than this)?.
I think it would be helpful to employ a similar process for the Hine site with representation from ANC 6B, civic organizations, Market vendors and citizens/market users participating. There has been a lot of community engagement early on, but that was regarding a more conceptual conversation. It seems we need a chance for the neighborhood to share their reactions to what has been proposed…. That ANC 6B has requested HPRB to delay it’s consideration of this project is a step in the right direction.”
Mr. Velasco has advanced the dialogue with a concrete and achievable suggestion and one which is hard to argue against. One hopes he would use this forum to revise and extend his remarks to outline the process by which ANC6c made this happen.
CAPITOL HILL CORNER 
I have argued for exactly this as a part of the PUD process and the only significant obstacle that has to be resolved is how it is funded.
Not a bad thought. I would however, rather see an urban designer/planner involved as mediator rather than an architect. We need someone who will look at the space objectively in terms of what can and/or should be done with it rather than someone who will look at it from the point of view of what buildings should be built.
It might be worth doing what we did with the Old Naval Hospital and have the Urban Land Institute come in and review the space.
Would Mr. Velasco be willing to flesh out a proposal on how to proceed with this?
Pingback: Morning Links: Arbitration - Housing Complex - Washington City Paper