Washington Harbour - Washington Harbour Design Proposals and Disputes

Washington Harbour Design Proposals and Disputes

The Chessie System and Western Development hired GMR Limited, an architectural firm located in Rockville, Maryland, to design Washington Harbour. The company submitted its proposed design to the Commission of Fine Arts in the fall of 1979. This design was a six-story, squat, heavily massed set of buildings (connected by bridges on the upper level) which utilized as much of the development area as possible. The CFA voiced concern about the massing of the complex, and GMR Limited lowered its height to just three stories. The changes were not enough, however, and the CFA rejected the proposed design in December. A month later, Western Development hired nationally known architect Arthur Cotton Moore to redesign Washington Harbour. Taking up the suggestions of the CFA, Moore said he would use a variety of colors for the project and possibly design smaller buildings with more space between them. Meanwhile, city officials backed off their unequivocal support for the project. In addition, the NCPC ordered that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be drawn up for the various development and park proposals, a study which would take at least six months to complete. With the redesign and EIS requirements, Western Development officials said the start date for their project was being pushed from fall 1980 to March 1981. The company also gave a name to its partnership with the Chessie System: Washington Harbour Associates.

On March 5, 1980, Moore proposed a new design for Washington Harbour. The $60 million project in the postmodern style consisted of two curving buildings on the southern part of the parcel, facing the Potomac River. Five other buildings, separated by pedestrian paths, were planned for areas to the east, northeast, north, northwest, and west of these curved structures. About 60 percent of the total project was to be residential, consisting of 350 to 400 condominiums. Retail space would occupy 320,000 square feet (30,000 m2) of the project. An elliptical yacht basin was planned for the area embraced by the buildings, and a riverfront park was intended for the strip of land between the development and the river. Altogether, the project occupied just 3.43 acres (13,900 m2), rather than the 5.9 acres (24,000 m2) in the previous proposal. The GCA vehemently opposed the design. A week later, the CFA partially approved Moore's redesign. It did not, however, approve the project's height. The CFA said the project, at 86 feet (26 m) high, was too tall, and that it would not approve any building taller than 60 feet (18 m).

Moore quickly submitted a revised design. The redesign lowered the height of the project to 68.5 feet (20.9 m) (just five feet taller than the tallest building in Georgetown). The footprint of the complex was expanded back to 5.9 acres (24,000 m2) and the residential and retail buildings moved closer to the river. Due to these changes, the overall size of the project declined to 700,000 square feet (65,000 m2) from 750,000 square feet (70,000 m2). The CFA approved the redesign's basic plan on April 8, 1980, although Washington Harbour Associates (WHA) was required to submit final architectural drawings to the CFA and prove that the National Park Service still planned develop the rest of the waterfront as a park. WHA meeting these two requirements would delay construction about a year.

GCA opposed the redesigned project as well. In November 1980, the GCA called for a two-year delay of the now $120 million project while a floodplain study was done. The GCA argued that the project was on such low land and so close to the water that it would regularly flood. Nine of the 13 D.C. City Council members sponsored a bill to ban construction on the project until the Federal Emergency Management Agency (which was already conducting a floodplain study of the area) was complete. Mayor Marion Barry opposed the legislation. Although no floodplain study requirement was imposed, another nine months passed while final architectural drawings and building permits were secured. By July 1981, the cost of the project had risen to $154 million (primarily due to inflation).