Nathanael Hill- Florida Avenue Market
-
Upload
nathanaelhill -
Category
Documents
-
view
111 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Nathanael Hill- Florida Avenue Market
Nathanael Hill
Urban Sprawl and the Environment
Individual Project
Florida Avenue Market: A Template for the New Urban Vernacular
Walk around the Florida Avenue Market on any weekend, and you will see a hive
of activity: t-shirt vendors selling off remnants from Obama’s inauguration; immigrant
families buying goat meat; hipsters lining up at A Litteri Italian market; cars jostling for
space with people outside DC Farmer’s Market. However, this reality presents a stark
contrast with the on-line commentary charting the history and proposed future of the
Market space (with some noble exceptions from the preservation crowd, including
Richard Laymon at “Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space”1). Developers have promoted
an alternate vision for the Market (see image 1), one that simultaneously denies the
authenticity of the Market and its continued vibrancy. The argument over the Market’s
future seems a microcosm for larger arguments over the future of DC: including the
proper role of space in an urban setting; multiple and perhaps differing aims of
development and revitalization; getting out in front of gentrification vs. promoting
gentrification; and perhaps most importantly, the search for the answer to who gets to
determine the character of an area.
A Brief History of Florida Avenue Market
Prior to the rise of Florida Avenue Market as a wholesale destination, the demand
for wholesale and fresh meats and produce for business and household alike was met by
DC’s Central Market, located at what is now the site of the National Archives. Following
the passage of the Public Buildings Act in 1926 mandating the development of the
Federal Triangle Area, the commissioners of the District of Columbia sought to relocate
the market to a single, conveniently located area. The commissioners settled on a parcel
in Southwest Washington, DC, accessible by both rail and water. Maryland farmers
bristled at this new location, banded together to form the Union Terminal Market
Association, and lobbied for a location in the Northeast quadrant. Exercising the
Association’s clout, together they purchased the land bounded by the railroad tracks on
the west, Florida Avenue NE on the south, 6th
Street NE on the east and Penn Street NE
1 http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/ and also http://capitalcitymarket.blogspot.com/
I am extremely grateful to Richard Layman, author of “Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space,”
urban/commercial district revitalization and transportation/mobility advocate and consultant, for his time,
insight and expertise in our entertaining discussions regarding the Florida Avenue Market, local politics
and gentrification.
on the north, a prime location based on its access to the rail yards to the west and the
commuter lines running out of Union Station. The remaining non-Association merchants
rushed to join the Association and participate in the new market, effectively killing the
Southwest market plan. As part of the negotiations surrounding their membership, they
extracted a pledge to develop an open-air farmer’s market adjacent to the wholesale
operations.
Construction began on the newly-named Union Market in 1929, and the Market
was opened in 1931. The Market continued to grow beyond its initial construction, and
soon boasted a selection of wholesale, meat and produce vendors. However, in 1962, a
public health report expressed concern for the open-air vending of meat and poultry, and
subsequent city legislation restricted the farmers market to the sale of fruits and
vegetables despite the dire warnings of Market merchants. By 1964, the farmers market
was largely moribund, and sold off, and by 1967 replaced with a new building. Despite
the downfall of the farmers market, the wholesale aspect of Union Market continued to
succeed, and the 1950s ushered in a new era of infill warehouse development. However,
this too would prove to be short-lived, as the rise of grocery store distribution centers
would deprive the wholesalers of important business. Individual merchants began an
exodus to the suburbs, and in the 1980s the government of the District of Columbia began
to buy several acres in the hopes of spurring revitalization. As more long-standing
merchants left the Market, the void began to be filled by a variety of ethnic markets.
Today, the Florida Avenue Market consists largely of “Koreans and Chinese and
Africans who specialize in catering to the new immigrant-owned restaurants and
groceries that have moved to the region”2 as well as remaining wholesale vendors. In
addition to the more tailored ethnic grocers, today’s incarnation of Florida Avenue
Market serves as a primary grocery option for residents of the food deserts that populate
the eastern edge of the District3 (food desert as defined by the USDA “a census tract must
have either: 1) a poverty rate of 20 percent or higher, OR 2) a median family income at or
below 80 percent of the area's median family income; to qualify as a “low-access
community,” at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract's population
must reside more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store”4). The
northern boundary of the Market has extended north from Penn Street NE to New York
Avenue NE (see image 2), and the most recent attempts to define/shape the future of the
market has fallen to a joint venture of J Street Development and Edens & Avant. This
venture has currently acquired approximately 140,000 square feet of space within the
Market, mostly centered on 6th
Street NE, and has designs for a project that “involves a
land assemblage for potential mixed use development, including retail, commercial,
residential and industrial uses.”5
Composition of Florida Avenue Market
2 Schwartzman, Paul. “Despite Challenges and Change, Market Is Still 'Another World': Faced With
Ebbing Crowds, Capital City Complex Takes on International Flavor.” The Washington Post. March 10,
2005 3 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/fooddesert.html
4 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/about.html#Defined
5 J Street Companies Capital City NE Development Project:
http://www.jstreetcompanies.com/capitalcitymarket
The Florida Avenue Small Market Plan6, commissioned by the District of
Columbia in 2009, provides the most comprehensive accounting of the composition of
the Florida Avenue Market area. Allowing for general economic-related turnover, at last
official count, the Market contained approximately 120 distinct lots, owned by
approximately 68 different entities. The largest of these current owners, including
Gallaudet University, Edens & Avant/J Street and Sang Oh & Company, in total, own
approximately 10% of the parcels, with the remaining parcels owned by individuals.
Many of the buildings on the premises are leased, and many of them are sub-divided
among multiple tenants. The buildings and lots in the market are primarily wholesale and
retail (including a diverse array of ethnic food markets, including Italian, African and
Asian venders), with the remainder divided up amongst parking, storage, office, and
restaurant space.
The physical structures themselves seem to arise from three distinct eras. The
first era of construction, overseen by the architect E.L. Bullock, provided a more classical
view, with 2 story warehouse spaces clearly defined by a loading dock bookended by
columns. The second era of construction largely mimicked the first, but was not guided
by the hand of a single architect. The third era of construction was highlighted by a joint
effort of the government of the District of Columbia and a collection of merchants to
construct a 200,000 square foot building, which would allow merchants to expand their
operations in lieu of relocating (see image 3).
Area Demographics
The Florida Avenue Market is bounded by several neighborhoods, a few of which
are undergoing demographic shifts. The Market is bordered by NoMA to the west, Near
Northeast to the south, Trinidad to the east and Ivy City to the north (see image 4).
Traditionally, Near Northeast, Trinidad and Ivy City have been middle-class residential
neighborhoods comprised of single-family and row house homes. Trinidad and Ivy City
belong to neighborhood cluster 23 (along with Arboretum and Carver Langston), and in
2010 the cluster had approximately 14, 500 residents,7 of whom 87% are African
American, and with an average family income of $45,000. NoMA and Near Northeast
are part of neighborhood cluster 25 (along with Union Station, Stanton Park and
Kingman Park), with a 2010 population of approximately 30,000 residents,8 of whom
43% are African American, and with an average family income of $126,000.
Of all the bordering neighborhoods, NoMA has experienced the most explosive
growth and development, largely following the development of the New York Avenue
Red-Line Metro stop. NoMA is “the fastest growing neighborhood in DC, with 16 new
shops and restaurants in just the last three years…(and) more than 1,200 residences
opened in 2010, and over 1,500 new apartments are currently under construction.”9
6 Florida Avenue Small Market Plan available through the DC Office of Planning:
http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+6/Small+Area+Plans+&+Studie
s/Florida+Avenue+Market+Small+Area+Plan 7 NeighborhoodInfo DC, DC Neighborhood Cluster Profile, Cluster 23:
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/nclusters/nbr_prof_clus23.html 8 NeighborhoodInfo DC, DC Neighborhood Cluster Profile, Cluster 25:
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/nclusters/nbr_prof_clus25.html 9 NoMA BID Resident Snapshot: http://www.nomabid.org/the-neighborhood/residents/
Today, NoMA is roughly “50% built out or under construction with 16 million square
feet, 2 hotels, 2,700 residential units and 200,000 square feet of retail”10
including the
developments centered on 1st Street NE that consist of several office and apartment
buildings, as well as a Harris Teeter and other neighborhood amenities (this area will
only continue to overhaul, with the recent announcement of the decision to sell the parcel
of land currently housing the Greyhound Station, at 1st Street NE and L Street NE).
Similarly, Near Northeast along the southern border of the Market is experiencing a
demographic shift, as the continued development of the H Street NE Corridor (alternately
the Atlas District) continues to creep north.
External Influences
The Florida Avenue Market is defined as much by its history and current
composition as it is by surrounding geography. The Market’s northern boundary, New
York Avenue NE, is colloquially referred to as DC’s “Northern Gateway,” and provides a
crucial commuting artery from Maryland into the District, ensuring large amounts of
vehicular traffic. The current state of commercial development along this boundary
stretch of New York Avenue NE provides an array of fast food options, but very little in
the way of grocery and/or whole food options. Immediately to the east of the Market sits
Gallaudet University, a school of nearly 2,000 students providing services to the deaf
community (and a property owner within the Market itself). Gallaudet’s role as property
owner, boundary and population draw (especially one seeking to further connect the
campus to the city; see Gallaudet University’s “6th Street Corridor Development
Concepts” document) makes it a prime player in shaping the future of the Market.
Florida Avenue NE, the southern border of the Market, as in the case of New York
Avenue NE to the north, is a vital commuting corridor, providing access to Benning Road
NE and across the Anacostia River. To the south, the continued “rebirth” of the H Street
NE Corridor ushers in a younger, “hipster” dynamic, stereotypically urban “pioneers”
seeking the diversity the city has to offer and the demographic to whom various Market
plans have been aimed at. The rise of NoMA, with “a total development potential of
roughly 32 million square feet of mixed-use and transit-oriented development... that
translates to about 100 high density buildings,”11
spurs the population explosion along the
Market’s western border, both through the introduction of approximately 2,700
residential units and 2 hotels.
Transportation
The Market is accessible to vehicular traffic, with 4th
Street NE traversing the
length of the Market (southbound) from New York Avenue NE to Florida Avenue NE
and with 5th
Street NE running north from Florida Avenue NE to Penn Street NE and
providing access to the Brentwood Parkway. 6th
Street NE forms the border between the
Market’s eastern edge and Gallaudet University, and links to the east/west axes of Morse
Street NE, Neal Place NE and Penn Street NE. The Market boasts proximity to
alternative transportation options, with WMATA’s 90, 92, 93 and X3 bus lines running
10
NoMA BID Development Snapshot: http://www.nomabid.org/developmentleasing/ 11
NoMa BID Development Inventory: http://www.nomabid.org/developmentleasing/
along Florida Avenue; the D1, D3, D4 and D812
running east-west along L Street NE
(approximately 0.3 miles south of the Market); the New York Avenue Red-line Metro
stop located approximately 0.6 miles west of the Market; Greyhound, Bolt and Mega bus
terminals all within less than a mile radius of the Market; and both Amtrak and MARC
trains (and an additional Red Line Metro stop) at Union Station approximately 0.8 miles
away. Also, the Market is close to the Metropolitan Branch Trail, which offers a vital
bicycle link.
Gallaudet University13
Despite NoMA’s rise to prominence over the last several years (fueled mostly by
the opening of the New York Avenue Metro stop in 2004), the external influence that has
the potential to wield the most significant impact on the future of the Market and the
surrounding community is Gallaudet University. Gallaudet is keenly aware of its role in
the community, and recently has taken great efforts to include local stakeholders in the
evaluation of its 10 Year Plan (it is interesting to draw a comparison between the relative
lack of controversy regarding Gallaudet’s 10 Year Plan despite the potential threat of
gentrification it poses [especially as some of these neighborhoods deal with current
demographic shift] with the hostility surrounding Georgetown’s 10 Year Plan).
Gallaudet recognizes that as a private owner of property within the Market it is in
turn a steward of public character and the there is a responsibility to the larger
community inherent in owning property within this space. At the same time, the needs of
the University coincide (in some regards) with the needs of the surrounding communities.
In order to remain competitive, physical revitalization can play a key role in making
Gallaudet attractive to the next generation of students, both in terms of direct amenities
offered and through the successful integration of the University into the neighborhood (as
the campus has been historically isolated from the larger community). Successfully
integrating with and opening up to the surrounding communities can help overcome the
obstruction of economic development that Gallaudet represents between NoMA, the
Market and the H Street NE Corridor. Not only is Gallaudet looking to integrate with the
neighboring communities, but as the population begins to shift more is being asked of the
University, and the Market is an ideal space to begin to give back. Developing the edge
of campus abutting the Market (and the space owned within the Market) is something that
can be done for the greatest benefit of the campus and the community.
This development is not without risk to Gallaudet. As a distinct linguistic
community, it is imperative that deaf-design pervade the Market, allowing full use for the
student body and continuing the process of bridging the gown/town divide. Another risk
posed is the struggle between assimilation and identity. Finally, Gallaudet faces the
responsibility to improve the area, but to do so in a way that does not disperse or destroy
the urban fabric.
Current Events
Two current events stand out as having direct implications on the future of the
12
See WMATA Metrobus Route Map for Washington, DC: http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/bus/DC.pdf 13
I am indebted to Mr. Hansel Bauman, Director of Campus Design and Planning, Gallaudet University, for
his generosity of time and insight in our discussions regarding Gallaudet University, its relationship to the
Market and the surrounding neighborhoods and a host of other topics.
Florida Avenue Market: the ethics scandal of Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.
and the DC Farmers’ Market. On October 20, 2011, the DC Farmers’ Market (1309 5th
Street NE) was largely gutted by fire, displacing vendors and rendering the building
unusable.14
In no way minimizing the impact that the fire, and the resulting
displacement, has on individual vendors, there is, in fact, an opportunity presented by
fire, as the building was architecturally uninteresting, and is now primed for updating and
renovation. Councilmember Thomas’ existing ethics concerns has complicated efforts to
rally District government support for revitalization in particular,15
and renewed questions
of the government’s role in private development (already an issue with the Florida
Avenue Market following passage of the New Town plan).
All these external forces play an important role in shaping the Market area, and
are important in defining its relationship to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Market
is a crucial link between the burgeoning NoMA district, the H Street NE Corridor to the
south and the neighborhoods to the north and east, helping to push amenities and
opportunity eastward along Florida Avenue NE.
History of Florida Avenue Market Planning
The planning for Florida Avenue Market has undergone several incarnations, and
the most recent venture can, in a sense, be seen as the culmination of four previous efforts
to plan the Market’s future. The first effort, undertaken in 2006 by the DC Office of
Planning, “The Northeast Gateway Revitalization Strategy” identified the Florida Avenue
Market as one of four redevelopment opportunity areas. The Strategy recognized the
Market as both an under-utilized resource and a regional attraction, and saw the potential
for employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.16
This effort led almost directly into
the New Town development plan, a private effort spearheaded by Sang Oh & Company.
Mr. Sang Oh Choi, the owner of approximately 2 acres of Market land, with the support
of then Ward 5 Councilmember (and now At-Large Councilmember) Vincent Orange,
proposed a plan “which would convert the industrial area into a 24-acre complex of
condominiums, restaurants, a hotel and a much smaller warehouse sector.”17
After a
widely critiqued and seemingly closed process, the Council of the District of Columbia
enacted “The New Town at Capital City Market Revitalization Development and
Public/Private Partnership Emergency Act of 2006”18
(i.e. New Town Legislation). This
legislation created a public/private partnership with New Town Development, declared
the Market blighted, and sighting the belief that the Market was an economic and social
14
See: O’Connell, Jonathan. “Capital City Market recovers from a bad week.” The Washington Post,
11/21/2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-business/post/recovering-from-a-bad-week-at-capital-city-
market/2011/11/21/gIQAlk0miN_blog.html 15
Editorial Board Opinion. “More mischief from Harry Thomas.” The Washington Post, November 20,
2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/more-mischief-from-harry-
thomas/2011/11/18/gIQAWIb5fN_story.html 16
“The Northeast Gateway Revitalization Strategy” can be found on the DC Office of Planning website:
http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+5/Small+Area+Plans+&+Studie
s/The+Northeast+Gateway+Revitalization+Strategy+and+Implementation+Plan+The+Northeast+Gateway 17
Silverman, Elissa. “New Town Market Proposal Approved,” The Washington Post, December 20, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901403.html 18
http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20060721113809.pdf
liability for the District as a whole, authorized a planned community of housing
(including workforce housing), retail and other facilities as envisioned under a
comprehensive revitalization plan. New Town represented a classic approach to urban
renewal: the combination of modern architecture and accommodation of the automobile,
adopting principles used to guide suburban development.
Despite approval, the New Town plan received ample criticism, and the District
proceeded with the next planning stage. In 2007, the “North of Massachusetts Avenue
(NoMA) Vision Plan and Development Strategy” was released.19
Like the Gateway
document cited above, this Strategy identified the Florida Avenue Market as a
development destination, but began to focus in on a food theme, and also looked at the
development of the Market in a more comprehensive fashion, evaluating the potential for
housing and retail opportunities against those already proposed for the surrounding
wards. At the same time, and as part of its larger campus plan review, Gallaudet
University issued its “Gallaudet University 6th Street Corridor Development Concepts:
Gallaudet & Capital City Market Plan.”20
This plan recognized that the development of
properties owned by Gallaudet within the Market could provide the opportunity to foster,
grow and build the relationship between the university and the surrounding
neighborhoods, for the mutual benefit of all involved parties.
Finally, in 2009, the DC Office of Planning released the “Florida Avenue Market
Study Small Area Plan.”21
This plan sought to balance the needs of the surrounding
stakeholders, while ensuring the Market would be accessible to both current and future
users.
Small Area Plan
The Small Area Plan seeks to emulate successful mixed-use markets from other
cities (for example the Strip District in Pittsburgh, PA, or the Pike Place Market in
Seattle, WA). The Plan emphasizes the need to retain the essential character of the
industrial space while still facilitating the development necessary to allow the Market to
thrive into the future. The development would incorporate the character of the
surrounding areas, effectively bridging any gap between the Market and its external
stakeholders and communities. Aside from general cosmetic work to upgrade the
appearance of the Farmers Market, the development would include “restaurants and a
culinary institute to draw more daytime foot traffic to boost the businesses that are part of
the area.”22
In order to allow this additional foot traffic, a lot of the development would
be pedestrian-oriented.
19
“The NoMa Vision Plan and Development Strategy” can be found on the DC Office of Planning website:
http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+6/Small+Area+Plans+&+Studie
s/NoMA+Vision+Plan+and+Development+Strategy 20
“Gallaudet University 6th Street Corridor Development Concepts: Gallaudet & Capital City Market
Plan” can be found on Gallaudet University’s website:
http://my.gallaudet.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/DailyDigest/employees/PR/Capital%20City%20Mkt%20Pr
esentation.pdf 21
“The Florida Avenue Market Small Area Plan” can be found on the DC Office of Planning website:
http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+5/Small+Area+Plans+&+Studie
s/Florida+Avenue+Market+Small+Area+Plan+Main+Page 22
Schwartzman, Paul. “City Study Urges Revitalization in Northeast Areas,” The Washington Post, March
3, 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1499-2005Mar2.html
In all, the Small Area Plan relies upon simplicity and flexibility. The Plan allows
for creativity, diversity of use and benefit and for the adaptability to change according to
future Market demands. The Plan in its entirety is mixed-use, but it does segregate (to
some extent) according to purpose, proposing the wholesale elements be relocated to the
northern end of the Market to allow easy access to New York Avenue NE, and the
clustering of restaurant and retail among the remaining walkable streets. The Plan would
seek to preserve as much of the architecture and history of the Market as viable, but
zoning changes (currently, the Market is zoned for low-bulk commercial and light
industry, and new residential development is not allowed within the Market’s zoning
restrictions) would allow for some higher buildings to be incorporated into the Market.
Similar to the segregation-according-to-use approach, the Plan recommends a
segregation-according-to-density approach, where the highest-density buildings are
located in closer proximity to New York Avenue NE and the moderate-to-medium
density buildings are located in closer proximity to Florida Avenue NE and 6th
Street NE.
The Plan also focuses on increased connectivity, particularly to the New York
Avenue Red-Line Metro stop, as well as to the Metropolitan Branch Trail, both of which
would encourage pedestrian use. The Plan recommends the fostering of a sense of place,
primarily achieved through safe, enjoyable and usable open/public space (the Plan
elaborates on both these issues, offering a street-by-street detail on how to achieve
connectivity and improve open space).
In order to accommodate a diversity of uses, and to foster stakeholder buy-in, the
Plan suggests a series of steps aimed at ensuring public participation. For example, in
order to best include Gallaudet University, the Plan suggests that deaf design principles
be implemented in any final development plan.
The only effort to narrow down the scope from that which is broadly outlined in
the Small Area Plan has been the initial efforts undertaken by the J Street
Development/Edens & Avant joint venture. According to J Street, “to date, the Venture
has acquired approximately 140,000 square feet of property strategically located
throughout the larger site limits”23
with the understanding of the need to work in
conjunction with local stakeholders, and in negotiations with District government.24
Florida Avenue Market/Capital City Market/Union Market: What’s in a Name?
Throughout different phases of planning and use, the Market has been called by
different names. Currently, developers Edens & Avant propose returning to the original,
Union Market, which they see as a way to “to build on the culinary heritage associated
with the original Union Market, while also modernizing it as the area reestablishes itself
as a new foodie destination.”25
However, changing the name of a space is fraught with
implications and consequences. When new names are proposed for a place, two reasons
are often cited behind the need for this change: to create a sense of place or to facilitate
23
J Street Companies: http://www.jstreetcompanies.com/capitalcitymarket 24
To see Edens & Avant’s previous development work: http://www.edensandavant.com/development.asp 25
DePillis, Lydia. “Capital City/Florida Avenue No More: Developers Go With Throwback ‘Union
Market.’” Housing Complex Blog, Washington City Paper. August 18, 2011.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/08/18/capital-cityflorida-avenue-no-
more-developers-go-with-throwback-union-market/
an area’s reinvention. While both a sense of place and resident investment in the shaping
of space are important components to a healthy and vibrant community, ultimately the
quest to usher in a new identity disingenuously masks gentrification behind a thin veneer
of patronizing community improvement.
The main drawback of the sense of place argument for a re-branding campaign is
found in the assumption that there was, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, no there there.
Efforts to brand/rebrand can instead erase the positive identity of a place. Proponents of
a name-change seek to create a cohesive sense of place, or hearken back to a gilded past,
but as the brand grows to overwhelm and erase identity, what, in fact, is lost is that very
sense of place sought. The commercial underpinnings of the branding campaign not only
erase the human element of the existing community and its web of connections, but it
also sets the agenda for the scope of the branding and how those inside and those forced
out of the branding are seen.
The reinvention justification begs the question of for whom is the space being
reinvented? For the benefit of the residents, who are concerned with the loss of identity,
pride and perhaps place as the Market is remade? Or for the businesses, who bemoan the
lack of foot traffic, and see a new name as a quick way to dispel any negative connotation
lingering in an old name? Part of the misguided drive behind re-branding comes from a
sense of competition between urban business districts and suburban box stores and
shopping malls, as though the needs of those communities are the same. Finally,
reinvention can be billed as the only recourse for a neighborhood whose name raises the
specter of crime and neglect, as the tool to drive development and empower residents (see
the “East of the River” vs. “River East” argument playing out in Anacostia). However,
instead of addressing the root cause of any problem a space may face the re-branding
glosses over the needs of the current residents and paves the way for others to come and
possibly take their place. The backlash against a re-branding campaign is another
incarnation of the backlash against the gentrification that follows in its wake.
A successful neighborhood marketing campaign does not need to include a
rebranding effort. Trumpeting the brand itself, what makes it unique, its positive history
and its unrealized potential are avenues to promoting a neighborhood’s return and the
foundation of a successful marketing campaign. Ultimately, as the battle for the soul of a
city’s spaces is waged, what is most important is reinvestment, not reinvention.
The (Re)Making of the Florida Avenue Market
The future of the Florida Avenue Market rests on a range of key concepts and
with a reevaluation of how we come to value and define success in terms of space.
Proposals such as New Town rely on a flawed rubric regarding space valuation and the
proper use of space, seeing economic indicators as the only yardsticks against which to
measure, seemingly divorcing the project from its larger context. In doing so, the New
Town proposal demonstrates an inability to evaluate diversity: of services, of places and
of people, and sees the Florida Avenue Market only for the potential of a clean-slate and
a sanitized view of urban living (complete with bowling alleys!), and crassly markets and
commercializes urban identity and cultural vitality, thereby leading to its marginalization
and displacement, and the unraveling of the urban texture of a place (or an identity), a
pattern reminiscent of the decline of East Village bohemia.26
Instead of utilizing space as
a mechanism to bridge cultural/generational/ethnic/ideological gaps, these “tabula rosa”
plans acts as a mechanism to facilitate diversity’s dispersal in a government-facilitated
asset sprawl, overwriting history, whitewashing the present and changing the future. This
diversity dispersion, mimics Merchant’s “colonial ecological revolution,” where
something native to a region (in her case plant or animal species, but in this case diversity
and the existing Market constituents and services) is extracted from its original context
and exported27
(in her discussion as overseas commodities, but in the Market case, the
diversity is exported to the suburbs). We must recognize, before it is too late, that there is
a cultural conscience to a built space, and that, in turn, there are cultural consequences in
its dissolution.
A successful definition of space conveys a clear political/ideological purpose,
stating unequivocally that the duty of the government and the role of market forces do not
have to be at cross-purposes. The power of the market, steered by the hand of
government, can be harnessed to preserve the cultural and architectural integrity of the
Market while ensuring that it has a viable future moving forward.
A place is not successful when divorced from its larger context, and any plan for
the Florida Avenue Market cannot be evaluated without recognizing its relationship to the
surrounding communities. Spaces are imbued with “…vitality and the quality of place
only when they are animated and modified by the qualities of a particular landscape.”28
The value of the Market is found in its use. The vitality and quality of place for the
Market is found in food, and it is essential that food continue to play a role in its future.
Edens & Avant has recognized this, and has named a “Director of Culinary Strategy”29
who has cited successful market projects in cities like San Francisco has the model for
the Florida Avenue Market.
Similarly, a place can only be successful if it “fits” practically and philosophically
within its surrounding neighborhood or region. This “fit” can be more broadly defined as
the quality of a place. Richard Florida defines the quality of a place as a combination of
three factors: what’s there (the built and natural environment), who’s there, and what’s
going on (a measure of the vibrancy of street life).30
The practical “fit” of a place, the
“what’s there,” speaks to the physical, environmental and architectural context, while the
philosophical “fit” of a place, the “who’s there,” (is it utilized by a diverse range of
people? by members of the surrounding community?) is more a measure of the
emotional context of a place; how the community at large and individual constituents
utilize and relate to a space. Finally, the “what’s going on” is the sum of the previous
two, as what is going on is determined by the interactions between an environment and its
users.
26
Jacoby, Russell. The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe. Basic Books, 1987. 27
Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England. University
of North Carolina Press, 1989. 28
Kelbaugh, Douglas. Common Place: Toward Neighborhood and Regional Design. University of
Washington Press, 1997. 29
Sietsma, Tom. “Richard Brandenburg leaves ThinkFoodGroup.” The Washington Post, 07/21/2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-we-can-eat/post/richard-brandenburg-leaves-
thinkfoodgroup/2011/07/20/gIQA5elWQI_blog.html 30
Florida, Richard. The Rise Of The Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community And Everyday Life. Basic Books, 2002.
A successful space is also one that recognizes the role that it plays in the larger
community. Space becomes something around which a community crafts and reinforces
an identity, almost a rallying point (think of DC micro-neighborhoods that are defined by
their successful places such as Eastern Market or Barrack’s Row), and this in turn is often
manifested in larger battles over gentrification. “The role of place in our identity is also
evident in the growing struggles over who controls place.”31
Richard Florida goes on to
argue that place has become the preeminent concept around which we organize and
identify ourselves, replacing workplace as our defining characteristic (although in some
regards, place can seem to be a proxy for race or ethnicity, and in that regards could be
seen to further entrench segregatory patterns).
Finally, successful places are successful in that they act as incubators of diversity:
in terms of use, architecture and services. “Successful places do not provide just one
thing: rather they provide a range of quality of place options for different kinds of people
at different stages in the life course.”32
Florida Avenue Market as “Third Place”
Perhaps the most appropriate lens through which to evaluate the success of the
Florida Avenue Market is as a “third place.” The concept of the third place comes from
urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg, and it describes locations outside of the first place of
home and the second place of work that provide a neutral ground where people can
gather and interact, and that is necessary as a counter-balance to the increased
privatization of our daily lives.33
As a third place, the Florida Avenue Market succeeds in filling a broad range of
roles for the surrounding community. The first thing that the Market accomplishes is that
it helps to unify neighbors, establishing/continuing loose ties between diverse audiences
by acting as an informal community center. The Market becomes a mixing bowl in
which diverse neighbors can interact and experience sights and smells they might
otherwise not be familiar with (think of the range of ethnic grocers populating the
Market). Another manner in which the Market serves to unify neighbors is through
bridging the generational gap, bringing youth and adults into association with one
another, and helping to facilitate the transfer of traditions from one generation to the next.
Secondly, the Market serves as a "port of entry" for visitors and newcomers to the
neighborhood, becoming an anchor to the larger city for recent immigrants, and
introducing them to local history.
The Market also helps to care for the neighborhood and build community (both
physically and metaphysically). The Market accomplishes this by acting as an informal
news distribution and social event center and as a gathering place for neighbors. The
Market also contributes to the promotion and preservation of local history, serving as a
place of identity for the local community. The Market facilitates the building of the
physical community by promoting economic development, both as an institution that can
spur local revitalization as an anchor space (and one which guarantees high foot traffic),
31
Ibid. 32
Ibid. 33
Ray Oldenburg, “Our Vanishing Third Places.” Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 25. Winter
1996-1997.
and as a source for local business development opportunity.
The New Urban Vernacular
The New Urban Vernacular (NUV) serves as a lens through which to view the
cultural viability of any proposed project slated for the Florida Avenue Market space.
The NUV movement builds off of the framework proposed by New Urbanism, and
includes elements of the environmental justice movement, historical preservation, smart
growth and other revitalization efforts. Ultimately, NUV is a place-based and people-
focused approach to urban planning, looking to preserve positive externalities including a
diversity of use and character, for successful revitalization “…must begin, then, by
reinstating the balance among the widest range of local uses.”34
NUV practitioners
partner with local governments to incentivize the use of existing space and advocate for
infill development.
NUV endorses several of the propositions set forth by the Congress for the New
Urbanism in their charter, including the need for the built environment to be “…diverse
in use and population; … designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car;
…shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community
institutions; (and) … framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local
history, climate, ecology, and building practice.”35
As the Market is an existing built
space, it already satisfies several of these principles, particularly in regards to its car and
transit accessibility. However, as development of the Market moves forward, it needs to
incorporate the remaining elements of the Charter: greater pedestrian accessibility framed
and facilitated by public space within the community institution of the Market; universal
accessibility to allow full use and enjoyment of the Market; and the preservation of the
architecture and design (and character) of the Market that celebrates its history and its
relationship to the surrounding communities.
Vernacular Code
With these broad guidelines in place, NUV then seeks to craft a comprehensive
code to guide the use of space. In order to formulate a specific and comprehensive code,
NUV begins with some aspects of the framework provided by Henry Wright in his “Six
Planks for a Housing Platform,” which posits the provision of ample, and properly
located community space, the minimization of the impact of cars on the use of space and
the planning of land, buildings and space in relation to one another. NUV then
supplements this approach with key pieces of the “Principles of Human-scaled
Communities,” including the need for a discernable center and the walk-ability of the
development. Finally, the NUV approach to development is augmented by some
principles found within the Hope VI program, namely the provision of services to the
community through partnerships with various agencies and service providers. These
elements combine to form a code which governs the appropriate development of space,
proscribing more radical deviations and prescribing the necessary elements to preserve
the Market’s character.
34
Duany, Andres and Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of
the American Dream. North Point Press, 2001. 35
Congress for the New Urbanism. “Charter of the New Urbanism.” http://www.cnu.org/charter 2001.
Historical Preservation
Historic preservation serves as a safeguard, protecting the space from physical
and emotional demolition. More than preserving the built environment, historic
preservation acts as a mechanism to protect the character, history and diversity of an
area,36
and provides the starting point for any discussion regarding the Market’s future.
Within the Market area, the original warehouse buildings should be preserved as part of
any plan, serving as a reminder of the history of the Market, as well as providing some
measure of reassurance that neither the history nor the current residents who continue that
history will be erased. The act of preservation, the designation of a space as worthy of
protection, signals something to the surrounding community: that the District cares about
the area, that it is worthy of investment and that it will be a part of the future. “Historic
preservation can be the underlying basis of community renewal, human renewal and
economic renewal… preservation as a means to create an operating community of
concerned and reasonably happy people.”37
In addition, the preservation of the historic
structures and character of the Market can propel the development of the Market,
distinguishing the Market from surrounding developments and attracting business and
tourist alike.
Cultural Impact Statement
Adopting principles of the environmental justice movement, the Department of
Transportation outlined three principles through which to evaluate projects: “1) To avoid,
minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations. 2) To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially
affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3) To prevent the
denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in, the receipt of benefits by minority and low-
income populations.”38
In addition to the need to recognize the environmental impact policy
implementation can have on minority and low-income communities, NUV understands
that there is also a cultural element that needs to be considered during the planning
process to avoid a disparate impact on any community. There is a clear connection
between built space/the structured environment and individual and community mental
“health.” Not only do people identify with (and find identity through) space, but a public
space can provide a sense of place and root a community into the larger context of the
surrounding city, and the treatment of a particular space within a community can act as a
larger signal to the role that community plays in the larger city (what does it say about
how a city values a particular community if its valued institutions are removed?). This
cultural justice perspective would seek to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact
on the surrounding community in which a project is situated, including damage to the
social fabric of a neighborhood, large-scale displacement or economic upheaval.
36
Email correspondence with Richard Layman 37
Moe, Richard and Wilkie, Carter. Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl.
Henry Holt and Company, 1999. 38
U.S. Department of Transportation “An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice.”
Publication No. FHWA-EP-00-013, 2000.
Additionally, this perspective would ensure that those most impacted from the end results
of any action are full participants in the decision-making process that leads to them. Not
only would this affirm that every member of an impacted community is s stakeholder in
the project’s outcomes, but it would facilitate the transition of the individual from
stakeholder to place-maker. The cultural impact statement would assure that the
government, and any developer involved in the project, would give proper consideration
to the cultural environment and context prior to undertaking any major action that could
significantly alter the urban fabric.39
From Policy to Implementation
A plan that included these elements would reinforce and reinvigorate the Market as a
crucial third place. Any Market development that included robust public participation
would work to further unify neighbors, as the community more clearly could feel
invested in a place that helped build the future for. The development of the Market
would introduce some of the other characteristics for third places set forth by Ray
Oldenburg. As a venue for fresh and local produce, and in conjunction with agencies and
service providers (and the offering of public health and wellness and access to health-
related information/programs), the Market would help reduce the cost of living. In
addition to increasing access to healthy food (and perhaps providing nutrition expertise or
cooking classes)40
, the Market could accomplish this on a basic level by allowing support
systems to form naturally, as regular customers can be checked in on. In addition, the
Market could begin to act as a safe space for the community, furnishing abundant eyes on
the street, ensuring strangers safe use and enjoyment of the Market space. Finally, the
Market could begin to fill a vital role as an entertainment center, utilizing its physical
space as an entertainment venue, screening movies, hosting cooking events, pop-up
restaurants41
and allowing local craftsmen to exhibit their work.
Support and Opposition
Support for the Florida Avenue Market, as envisioned in the broadly defined
Small Area Plan, currently comes from a variety of the surrounding stakeholders. Both
Gallaudet University and NoMa BID see the development of the Market as a necessary
step in the integration of the area as a whole, as a vital conduit between diverse
neighboring communities. Public input was utilized during the planning process, but as
of right now plans are not concrete (and therefore any threat not immediate), that input
has been limited to those most apt to attend community meetings.
Opposition to any development of the Florida Avenue Market has seemingly
focused on several important issues: the need for (and previous lack of) community input;
the implications of redevelopment vs. revitalization (or in other words, ground-up
39
See: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 40
See: Layman, Richard. “Retail planning and the Florida Market.” Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space.
02/20/2009. http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/02/retail-planning-and-florida-market.html 41
See: Kelly. “Capital City Market to Get Pop-Up Restaurants?” DC Mud: The Urban Real Estate Digest
of Washington, DC. 08/02/2011. http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2011/07/capital-city-market-to-get-pop-
up.html
revitalization vs. top-down renewal); the development of new spaces without the
strengthening of existing spaces; and sort of lording over them all, the fear of
gentrification and displacement.
Opposition centers primarily on the fear of the loss of essential character of the
Market. To paraphrase Christopher Lasch, the danger to public spaces comes from “…
the erosion of its psychological, cultural and spiritual foundations from within.”42
The
fear was more than just the loss of wholesalers, t-shirt vendors and ethnic markets, it was
a fear of a loss of a way of life (it is important to note the large role that food plays in our
daily lives: not only giving sustenance, but transmitting tradition down through the
generations, inspiring ritual observance and fueling cultural and ethnic identity, so
perhaps fear of the loss of ethnic markets and the Market’s food theme isn’t such a small
fear in and of itself), and fear of a loss of a part of DC itself, of an architectural and
cultural heritage.
A lot of the opposition directed at the initial New Town plan centered on the lack
of community input, and the resulting loss of character that the development portrayed.
The New Town plan spelled the end of the Market as it had existed, and “to destroy it is
to destroy authenticity, and replace it with some sort of modern suburban-like New Town
subdivision, rather than respect and extend the urbanity that makes Washington DC an
attractive place to live today.”43
The inclusion of seemingly suburban features into an
urban environment (such as box stores) and without public input, was intuited by
surrounding communities as the first stages of removal. The New Town plan calling for
housing on a scale not seen in the surrounding neighborhoods reinforced the fear the
Market was not being revitalized, but being redeveloped.
In addition to the general opposition to specific development plans for the Market,
there exist structural obstacles to its development (particularly its development in line
with the NUV paradigm). These obstacles include local regulations and zoning; the
balancing of multiple private owners and the impact multiple ownership has on building a
cohesive vision for the Market; general economic conditions and the availability of funds
and subsidies to encourage smart growth; overall project costs associated with infill
development; and the ever-present need for community involvement and how that
involvement may change as the community changes.
Conclusion
Over the course of the last several years, the future of the Florida Avenue Market,
and who that future is meant to serve, has been hotly debated. Despite its continued use,
different visions have alternately been promoted an alternate vision for the Market, some
of which envisioned a clean break from its past, and some of which sought to embrace
this past. The argument over the Market’s future seems a microcosm for larger
arguments over the future of DC and of cities in general: including the proper role of
space in an urban setting; multiple and perhaps differing aims of development and
revitalization; getting out in front of gentrification vs. promoting gentrification; and
perhaps most importantly, the search for the answer to who gets to determine the
character of an area. While the exact future of the Market seems unclear as the
42
Lasch, Christopher. The Idea of Progress: The Purpose of Place and the Meaning of Values. 43
“Testimony on the Florida Market New Towns proposal,” Richard Layman, Friday, October 20, 2006
surrounding communities wait for the next plan to be issued, the argument over for who
the plan will be for continues on. The hope with this paper was to try and address some of
these questions, and to present a framework for thinking about the future of the Market in
a way that would demonstrate how the relationship between a community and space is
symbiotic, and that as one goes, so goes the other. The character of an area is formed by
the interaction of individuals with the built and natural environment, and this character is
constantly reborn, as new individuals discover its particularities and learn to identify with
its opportunities.
It is important to recognize that the battle over the future of the Market is a battle
over the future of the District itself, and an attempt, on a local level, to present a case for
how cities in general ought to work and be valued. Cities survive through the
preservation of diversity: of people and of places, and as a city loses its vital spaces it
loses its character. “City character is blurred until every place becomes more like every
other place, all adding up to no place.”44
The value of cities is found in their promotion
of diversity, in their ability to make space for a plethora of needs and opportunities. As
Jane Jacobs said, “the point of cities is multiplicity of choice.”45
As redevelopment
schemes continue to gloss over the rich cultural history of our public spaces, cities lose
their vibrancy, their identity and their value.
44
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Modern Books, 1961. 45
Ibid.
Supplemental Images
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4