Unbelievable! There's so many uninformed people here standing in the way of progress. If Bert Ely and company weren't making so much trouble - we could have had the Gaylord National right here on the Alexandria Waterfront!

At this rate, it will be a miracle if ANYTHING ever done to the waterfront, regardless of which side you are on. Constant dickering over process and acceding to NIMBYs demanding to be heard, and heard, and heard again seems a surefire way to maintain the status quo.

By "opponents" I presume you mean the individuals who'd prefer a massive hotel not be built across the street from their historic home?

Yeah, I really, really, really can't understand why they'd fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening.

Here we go again with the gross exaggerations. Massive? The proposal is not massive now and no doubt will be scaled back during the "process". But nothing will
Satisfy the neighbors and you. I hope you enjoy the new condo, which is the alternative to the hotel.

I'd much prefer condos to hotels. Property owners are much more vested in the neighborhood than are tourists.

And yes, a 121 room hotel is massive. If think otherwise please let me know how long a piece of string is.

"So those in the "historic homes" across the street like looking at an abandoned warehouse rather than a small - yes small - hotel."

The folks I know in the area, yes. They much prefer the warehouse. It's quiet, clean, doesn't take several daily deliveries, and doesn't place 150 cars on the block.

"I really think the city should build public housing there since there is none in that quadrant of Old Town."

What about the revenue generation you've been banging on about? You're a tiresome old man Jon. Shouldn't a man your age be in bed right now?

"to reclaim our cherished history a rendering plant and auto plant should be recreated on the waterfront."

Straw man.

McBrinn is my real name. It's obviously not my entire name (I'm not Madonna, after all) but I assure you it's on my birth certificate.

As for "ad hominum" attacks, well, you started it with mischaracterizing my points as "massive" generalizations. Too hot in the kitchen and all that...

"Abondoned Wharehouse", if you say it enough, it must be so. The site of this Hotel is not an abandoned wharehouse, but the former site of the Art League Annex that was evicted. The Art League put forward a propsa lto turn the former Interarms Wharehouse into an Art League Center. I do not beleive either of the two Robinson Terminal Wharehouses are abaondoned either. In fact, I believe there use must be continual in order to mainatain there status as wharehouses. This does not mean that all these sites should not be improved or turn intosomething else. The question has always been what is the best use. Since the Carr Hospitality Hotel Indigo Proposal has always been the one mentioned I wonder if this has been the driver of the whole plan. It would be a lot of money spent to secure the fortunes of this one developer, but then again, a lot of money has been spent to make sure Virtue Feed and Grain has access to the outdoor seating in th alley. It seems some of the supporters of the Waterfront plan would be ontent with the Corcoran on Robinson Terminal west, which would go against everything they said would be wrong with a museum, and I have always understood that the development of Robinson Terminal South would be a long way off, especially as the Seaport Foundation spent considerable money renovating their space a couple years ago.

I agree with Ms. Sashkin's comment, and many others so far. Old Town residents pay a premium for some of the benefits of living where they do, but Old Town is not (yet) a gated community. The city has invested millions over the years to make Alexandria a destination. I expect that the hotel will attract many business travelers, who work with the associations in Old Town. With the right kind of communication and work with the hotel, there should not be 150 cars per day. Shuttles and cabs should be able to handle the majority of the traffic.

Some Old Town residents are taking on a bad reputation of NIMBYism; no waterfront development, no bikeshare, etc. There has to be some sort of olive-branch before other residents begin to listen to them again.

The rest of the city's residents pay the same tax rate. We need development that will add to our tax base. DelRay residents are feeling the same concerns about crowded streets and parking in residential areas. However, if DelRay had not made the improvements in retail and restaurants that has occurred over the last 15 years, our home values would not have shot up as much as they have.

Being concerned and offering input is one thing. Be a perpetual oppositionist is another.

Jon, there's no point in debating the Mighty McBrinn. He's an insecure youngin - though happy to tell you that Mommy and Daddy raised him here - that trolls around on this site making silly arguments. I'm not sure about a hotel at 220 South Union St and to be honest am mindful of the impact on those closest to the site but illogical arguments (150 cars - really?) or NIMBY inspired knee jerk opposition, like that offered above, calls into question the true motivations of opponents. I know this the status quo is not viable and condos do little for all but those living in the "historic" homes on the waterfront.

Ok I am going to try and resist taking shots at anyone who has posted here and instead alert everyone to the fact that this proposal has been removed from the bar's docket for the July 25 meeting. In a strange twist, it looks as though there will be an informal discussion and public comment session after the formal bar meeting. Man this is getting weird... How is it that rules and procedures can get changed on the fly like this? Note that the Carr drawings have been updated to include sod on some of the roof sections. Hmm does that qualify as open space? Green sod 20, 30 or even 60 feet above the ground?

Well said. There is no reason to deviate form the normal process. A new zone is required, so go ahead and create it, submit it to the BAR when the application meets the law, and go on from there. This looks like an oh so cute way of cutting a few months off the process while marginalizing the BAR. It was this kind of poor and arrogant decision making that got the city in trouble before the BZA. Apparently, it learned nothing from that experience.

Of course, there was no reason for the city to deviate from the normal process when it blew off the law and ultimately lost before the BZA. All it had to do to fix the problem was initiate a text amendment, and chose to sue itself instead.

Patch posted the newly submitted Carr plans in another article. There are three options which slightly modify the design (sod on roof), covered alley options. But all three seem to keep the mass and scale as is (59 feet high and far of 3.0). Is it so much to ask for alternatives which are consistent with existing zoning? Why cram such density in a constrained and historic location? Less is more and current zoning allows for property owners and developers to make money - case and point is the EYA project in the sheet metal building. Those things are selling like hotcakes! Check it out..

John, there are many reasons why density can be a good thing if done right. Look at the EPA website for a lot of information on this subject. We are still discussing the "three properties." The options still are the same: Purchase them and convert them to parks - will not happen. Persue the plan and incorporate hotels - good for all Alexandrians and tourists. Let by right happen and have townhomes and condos - which the bulk of Alexandrians do not want, but appears that, from McBrinn's statement, he would perfer. I am aslo beginning to feel that the opponents of the Plan also would prefer to have more residence than hotels. I can assume the reasons, but would you like to comment, and clarify on this?

Comments such as Mr. Fitzgerald's "Why cram such density in a constrained and historic location?" perpetuate a fallacy, and it is this approach to which I take umbrage. The core of my frustration with the professional oppositionists (as they have become) is that they refuse to make arguments based on the facts, but rather insist on distorting reality. If opponents of the waterfront development plan were to come to the table acknowledging the plain fact that by-right development will occur with or without the city's intervention, and such development will only be constrained by current zoning (in terms of scale, density, parking, loading areas, traffic) and design oversight by the BAR (limited to whether the look and materials fit the historic area, not whether the building is used for condos, hotels or public space), then we can debate the merits of specific plans. But these opponents continue to perpetuate the mythical premise that the city can and should start from scratch and re-zone the area to limit development to the preferences of a handful of people. That is not the way property rights work, and it certainly isn't a practice of sound government to allow the vocal minority ambush plans which would bring good to the whole of the community.

KM- she called him a liar. He has every right to respond like he did.

Thanks McBrinn. I stand by my comments. Do check out the EYA project though. If I were a professional naysayer wouldn't you think I would be opposing everything including it? Nope I think EYA should be commended for a great project that enhances the neighborhood, respects the neighbors, and makes the city a whole lot of money....

Making arguments based on a faulty premise does not make one a liar; it makes one misinformed. I was simply making the point that it is difficult to have a rational discussion when the underpinnings of the argument are skewed. The city may well come to the conclusion that the submitted hotel plans are not permitted by current zoning, but that is why we have a zoning process, a process which works quite well when we let our professional civil servants do their jobs (and, I might add, which already welcomes citizen participation). I am particularly troubled that NIMBY citizens feel it is their right to hijack the city's established processes when a by-right proposal affects their block, but in the same breath cheer by-right development of a different block on their same cherished waterfront when it impacts somebody else. It seems, for some, historic preservation, traffic mitigation, etc. lose some urgency if the neighborhood impacted is comprised primarily of low income minorities and the elderly.

I think the headline is a bit misleading. I have not read all the bylaws of the BAR, but other review bodies in other jurisdictions have a structure where applicants can request a "workshop" session or a formal session for a vote by the board. Workshop s are to work through various aspects of the project. Indeed this process seems to work best because the applicant can get feedback on different aspects, and keep the design process moving along. One session might deal with the site plan, another architectural details, another landscaping, etc. And for each of those, the applicant can still request a work session or formal session. The board can vote on different aspects of the project and doesn't need to cast one vote on the project in its entirety.

As Davina above noted, zoning is a separate process. The purview of the board is to evaluate the compatibility of the project in terms of materials, mass, scale, etc., but unless Alex. is very different, BAR/ARB's can't/don't weigh in on zoning issues. The headline gives the impression that the city changed process especially for this project. It sounds like they and/or the applicant decided to change it from a formal session to a work session. No big deal. That makes sense because surely this will be appearing before the BAR several more times, and yes the zoning may change along the way. It looks like this early workshop is to discuss the general concept and identify issues of initial concern to work through.

JD Valk wrote: For those truly interested in significant and beneficial economic development, . . . there IS an answer up the road a piece! The Mirant land offers the potential for waterfront-centered playground for planners and developers who will have enough space and the ability to build from scratch . . . ."

Mirant has been the site of coal burning and storage for nearly 50 years. Thus, the land is highly polluted with sulpher. I'm Mirant offers the potential for instant development - provided Pepco (the landholder) agrees to sell it (which they have indicated they do not), any developer is willing to meeting the EPA's brown field or superfund requirements, and the City is willing to spend the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars needed to clean it up. Pig likely will fly first.

Who said anything about instant development? There’s a reason I cited Potomac Yards some 20 years past the first dvt plans becoming finalized, only now seeing the phases moving towards completion. We saw how quickly plans were bandied about with 100s of townhouses and 200K-plus SF of commercial dvt, which also occurred when the rail yard was closed and long term planning was sought.

Let’s be real; we’re talking acres and acres of prime real estate. You saw how enviro concerns are holding back the city on dvt from rail yards to the waterfront to Metro station plans near 'wetlands' off the GW Parkway – not! There will be rehab; the land is too prime not to have it happen. Some officials are talking hundreds of millions of dollars for a hardly critical Metro stop at Potomac Yards; don’t think that the right combo of fed rehab dough combined with city/developer funding over a similar period of time to Potomac Yards won’t get the ball rolling at Mirant to get the most out of it.

Besides, instant dvt isn’t needed, especially given the city’s strong financial standing & bond rating; there’s enough coming on line at the moment (including at Potomac Yards) & down the line (Beauregard, Landmark, etc.) If the city’s economic fate hangs on a hotel on the Robinson Terminal site going up in the next few years, we’re in big trouble, so I wouldn’t fret over its fate as it relates to its impact on Alexandria’s current and future fiscal health.

Hi Scooby- check out the docket for the July 25 meeting. It isn't a work session.. They created this unique and informal review and public comment session to be held immediately following their regular meeting. This is incredibly irregular. Work sessions are generally held in the conference room where citizens can sit in the peanut gallery but work sessions do not allow for public comment. There are numerous other issues with the way this is going down? Read about the numerous issues here: http://02a2030.netsolhost.com/images/Letter_to_BAR_with_attachments-stamped.pdf

Here's Bing Maps birds-eye view of the site: http://binged.it/O8Z1nR

I wouldn't click on the link above... It does not look like a bonafide bing map link. Try: http://www.bing.com/maps/?FORM=Z9LH2#JnE9LjIyMCUyYnMlMjU0MDIlMmJ1bmlvbiUyYnN0JTJiQWxleGFuZHJpYSUyYnZhJTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTM4Ljg0MTU2MjcyNjM0OTUlN2UtNzYuOTkyOTk5NDg2NzExNyU3ZTM4Ljc2NTU3ODI0MDk3NTglN2UtNzcuMTA4NTI3NTkzNDAxMQ==

Sorry the binged.it URL looked suspect but it is legit .. See here http://www.google.com/search?q=binged.it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Let's cut to the chase: some Old Towners do not want development. Many Alexandrians want some level of development. Everyone needs to indicate what will work and what will not. Claiming concerns about maintaining historic accuracy do not register from my perspective. Many waterfront town homes along the 200-600 block of S. Union St. are not historical. Ford's Landing borders the area and those homes are not historical. Historical Alexandria homes already are bordered by recent (early 1990's) development.

It appears to me that the key issue is increased traffic in a residential area. As a resident, I can behind that argument. Work with City Council to address that challenge.

KM and Denis- you both have very limited vocabularies if you're unable to understand how"perpetuate a fallacy" translates to lying. Here's a helpful link:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/fallacy?s=t

And now she's called him a bigot. Quite the hole she's digging.

hey McBrinn- strangely, the link To the "Carr Application for concept review" goes nowhere. Also on the "waterfront plan implementation site", read where they say that the "effective height... Is not 59 feet, but rather 50 feet..". Unbelievable... 59 is not equal to 50 last time I checked. Links below.
http://alexandriava.gov/special/waterfront/default.aspx?id=62644
http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/icons/pz/bar/ohad/cy12/072512/pdi08.pdf

Unbelievable indeed. I'd love to hear any of the plan supporters justify something this blatant.

Not to get too conspiracy minded but the information that should be available via your second link has been removed. Only the city has the ability to do that.

Just what the hell does the city think they're doing?

No conspiracies. Here is the document link from the DPS "dockets, webcasts, and podcasts" page.
http://alexandria.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alexandria_9ed2155bccd6e03fbc5656266d13dd31.pdf&view=1&showpdf=1

Sorry I'm so late joining this civic discussion.

I'm curious about the arguments for placing a 5 story building at the corner of Union and Duke. I understand why the Carr's would like to do it. But what about folks who do not have a direct financial interest? I can understand why you would want expanded green space, access to the river, foot and bike paths along the river. But a hotel?

Have you been trying to book a hotel room in Old Town and found the other hotels filled? Are you hoping to check into an upper story room with a view of the Potomac over the Alexandria Marine shop?

Do you believe Old Town residents must make a greater contribution to the city because they do not pay their fair share of city taxes? And that the best way to make them pay more is to increase their density?

If the hotel is built, will you want another five-story hotel built on the site of Robinson Terminal North? And another on the site of Robinson Terminal South?

Would you at least agree to require a study on the impact of traffic and parking on the affected streets, before recommending a hotel as a solution?

The current density restrictions have been a place for two decades, presumably with the goal of preventing the kind of development now being considered. So why is there such a pressing need to make the change now?

I assume the comments about the improvements at Del Ray are totally correct and development there has been a great success. (Del Ray is a great community). Maybe that's where the Carr's should build their new hotel. Maybe the additional revenues would help pay for the new free trolley to Del Ray.

A comment has been deleted by a Patch editor for violating terms of use.

Joe, thanks. Help me with this - it seems that the success of the hotel has to be a consideration for the public. If the hotel is not a success, it will not generate the funds that the city is budgeting for the the development. The taxpayers will get stuck with the tab and the neighbors get stuck with the five story building and higher allowable density. Is this correct?

I thought I would resist commenting here, but that remark about the massiveness of the building can not be ignored. The building has a floor area ratio of 3 and a height of five stories. That is exactly the zoning the city council majority tried to pass last January. It's in limbo now because of the city's suit against the decision of its own board. If this building goes forward, it will do so under the part of the zoning code allowing "rezoning without a new master plan." This plan is coming now because the contingent contract buyers of the site want to build at this massive size, at least one third larger than any nearby building. The mass and scale allowed by the zoning (that is not in place right now) is the reason I have always opposed the waterfront plan. Interspersing massive new buildings among the remaining historic buildings guarantees the destruction of any historic ambience in this area.

Jon, we definitely agree - the proposed buidling is too massive!

Edgar, can we agree that zoning restrictions have some social value? Or do you argue that all zoning restrictions should be scrapped in favor an unrestricted free for all (that would be unusual for any Democrat, young or old, and for most Republicans)? Or do you have reasons to support a specific change in the current restrictions that have been in place since 1992?

Jon, I forgot to mention - are we really interested in a 5 story office building at the corner of Duke and Union, in case the hotel does not work out? (I realize I am biased - I am opposed to a 5 story building at that corner, regardless of its use).

Current zoning allows for small rooming house type establishments I believe. I would be in favor of seeing a few German gasthaus like inns on the waterfront. Of the scale and style of colonial williamsburg. 10-12 guest rooms each.

it seems like perhaps the majority in this thread agree that the Carr building is too darn big. That I see as a step forward. Now let's see some proposals being brought forward which stay within current zoning. Is that really too much to ask for? How much outcry has there been against the EYA project in the sheet metal building? I have seen none. Why perhaps? Well maybe because EYA sees and is using the lower density and scale as a differentiator other most modern development projects which are about squeezing as much density as possible.. The small scale of the project (as with the small scale of old town) make it unique.

How is it we're talking about building anything? I thought the waterfront's fate was far from decided?

Nicely put Edgar.

Edgar, what about the part where the city obstructed proper procedure?

To join Sarah's response, let's not forget that the city ignored the protest that would have required a super majority vote (which the prodevelopment members did not have) and that they ignored the appeal against their rejection of the protest, which should have stopped the vote altogether.

Edgar, I'm curious. Do you believe that the rules that our council enacted to give citizens a say in zoning matters are just a waste of time, and that the city council should be free to do as it wishes, without any protection given to the citizens of the city? As I recall from an earlier message, you did not seem to give much regard to our current zoning restrictions. Your term for them, I believe, was 'statist planning'. Which seems an odd turn of a phrase when the issue is restrictions on government power.

Howard and Sarah,

Thanks for your comments -- which, I'd note, are more civil than some of the ones higher in the chain (see Ms. Sashkin calling people racists, or not, etc.).

I'd say initially in response that two different elements are raised by your comments: the procedure of reaching the decision on the waterfront plan and the substance of the plan itself. For those of us who are lawyers, the world divides into substance v. procedure -- but they always meet at the end of whatever judicial process you're in.

In the case of the waterfront plan, procedurally, I'd say that any flaws in the process of making the plan -- and there were allegedly many, according to the opponents, ranging from the timing of notice of some of the initital meetings, to the supermajority appeal that was not done correctly, to the selection of membership and chairmanship of the Council working group, to that group's agenda, etc., etc., -- were ultimately cured by the democratic process of the City Council vote. Given the years this plan was before the public, to the dozens (if not hundreds) of meetings, there was ultimately (in my view) an open and fair process with multiple channels for public input. Perfect? Probably not, but nothing in a real democracy is. Real governance is ugly, and is hard work.

Substantively, (and I have to be brief here w/space restrictions), given that process, did we wind up with a plan that improves our waterfront and is affordable? Yes.

E. W.

There is a very good chance the super majority will exist on the council this winter even if the law suits fall out in a way that requires a re-vote. This is why the democratic primary this Spring was so important. Alexandria now votes for council on the same day as the presidential election. Moving the local election date was one of the final things the all Democratic council did in 2009 as they lost two seats to Fannon and Hughes. After losing the game, they changed the rules for the next game and now we are about to play that game.

A lot of people who vote in the presidential election vote the party ticket. In the last presidential election 71% of Alexandrians voted Democratic, 27% Republican. Unless something very odd happens, City council will be Lovain, Wilson, Pepper, Chapman, Smedberg who have all come out in support of the plan. That's a super majority. Silberberg is the lone dissenter. The anti-waterfront plan constituency will have to find some way to get Fannon re-elected instead of someone on the Democratic ticket (except for Silberberg). This would involve something extraordinary. They could also try and get one of the democrats to change their stance and flip-flop (no one likes flip floppers).

The protest petition process is important in light of how the government is structured. Council members are elected "at-large," meaning no wards or districts. One neighborhood can be over-represented and one under-represented, depending upon who runs and who has the numbers at the moment. It is no coincidence that BRAC ended up where it did. That neighborhood just does not have the wealth or the numbers to matter. The protest petition process restores some balance. Majority rule, minority rights.

These types of clashes are inevitable under the Alexandria government structure.