Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Very definitely so. I think unless we come up with an economic, feasible way of accomplishing air rights, as I pointed out, the center city bears the burden of maintaining the central transportation complex for the whole region and that takes valuable land, and to put interchanges through a center city, the amount of land that you take, cuts such a wide path through the city, unless we can put something on top of that and recover that valuable land, we gave away, we gave it away basically to maintain a regional transportation system, we have to get it back. We cannot afford not to do that. Senator TYDINGS. Let's suppose there was not going to be a new foot of freeway built in a city in the District of Columbia.

Should the city still have the opportunity to utilize air space? Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I think so; even though we have not licked all the problems of air space development, the fact that such legislation would be on the books and would give you the opportunity to explore, would mean that we could bring in the type of genius required to solve the problem.

Senator TYDINGS. For instance, your Penn Railroad, that whole project would not or could not have been done without the utilization of air space.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. No.

Senator TYDINGS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McLaughlin. Our next witnesses will be Mrs. Peggy Lee Horseley representing the Freeway Committee of the Urban League Neighborhood Development Center, Mrs. Geraldine Riley, and Mrs. Arlene Neil, members of the board of the Washington Urban League.

Are you Mrs. Horseley?

Mrs. HORSELEY. Yes.

Senator TYDINGS. Are the other ladies here?

Mrs. HORSELEY. Yes.

Senator TYDINGS. Why don't all three of you ladies come up together?

Mr. RUSK. Mrs. Neil has a separate statement, and will appear later.

STATEMENT OF MRS. PEGGY LEE HORSELEY, THE FREEWAY COMMITTEE OF THE URBAN LEAGUE, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, AND MRS. GERALDINE RILEY, CENTER LEAGUE FREEWAY COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE Senator TYDINGS. Mrs. Horseley, we are delighted to welcome you and Mrs. Riley before this subcommittee. You may proceed with your statement and give us the benefits of your thoughts.

Mrs. HORSELEY. My name is Peggy Horseley. I live at 1014 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. I am here to represent the Freeway Committee of the Urban League Neighborhood Development Center.

Five blocks away from my house, a freeway is coming. Eventually, this freeway will take my house, unless air rights legislation is passed. Our community will be wrecked by this freeway and people scattered into already overcrowded housing in the District.

A freeway destroys housing, schools, business or anything else in its path, without replacing them.

Therefore, we support the Senate bills S. 1245 and S. 1246, because these bills would allow the Government to build new housing, new schools, new parks and other buildings over the freeway. In this way, our community could stay together.

Man should not destroy unless he can recreate something better or something of value in its place. Putting a platform over a freeway and building newer and better buildings on top of it, will make up for the destruction that the freeway causes. In this way, you also create a new tax benefit. With careful planning, we could remain on most of the existing land until the new housing is built. This way, we would not have to be scattered all over town; perhaps into the path of another freeway.

The last thing I want to say is our community needs both low and moderate income houses. As you know, housing is one of our biggest problems in Washington, D.Č. I see you have mixed housing as your fourth problem, and because housing is a big problem in the District of Columbia, we feel mixed housing should be your first problem. Thank you.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Horseley.

Mrs. Riley.

Mrs. RILEY. My name is Geraldine Riley. I am now living in the path of the freeway. I am deeply concerned about the housing that the freeway will destroy. Since the housing situation is so crucial, Senator Tydings, I am very much in support of your bill. I see this as being a way of creating new land to build housing on, as well as schools, parks, and Government facilities.

I also think that with careful planning, people will be able to remain on existing land while construction is going on. Instead of destroying a community, it will keep a community together.

The Center League Freeway Committee has been working for 2 years in conjunction with the Highway Department and other agencies on housing projects that will require air rights legislation.

Even though 192 families will be displaced, 327 will be able to move into new units. This clearly shows that with the use of air space, the pressing need of housing will be greatly reduced.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Riley.

Mrs. RILEY. While I am here, I would like to present this for the record. It is a letter from the Washington Urban League, Inc., to Mrs. Elizabeth Rowe of the National Capital Planning Commission on air rights housing and a letter from the Highway Department on ventilation.

Senator TYDINGS. We are going to have representatives of the Highway Department at our next hearing, and I am going to personally quiz them about this because I think that is very effective testimony in favor of the legislation, if it is a fact that they will be able to almost double the number of units available for displaced families in additional housing.

Mrs. RILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much. (The letters referred to follow :)

WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE, INC.,
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
Washington, D. C., July 24, 1967.

MRS. ELIZABETH ROWE,

Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MRS. ROWE: The Freeway Residents Committee of the Urban League Neighborhood Advisory Council has been working on the problem of the Center Leg of the Inner Loop Freeway since the fall of 1965. We were then concerned with the immediate threat that this freeway posed to the residents of this community as well as the large issues of proper allocation of public resources between highway improvement and public transit. The Center Leg on Third Street, N. W. would split this neighborhood, eliminate the houses of 192 families and create a barrier to crosstown circulation for families who would live in Northwest One Urban Renewal Area. The project area is already bounded by commerce, industry and government on the east and south. In effect the highway would complete the isolation of the area from other residential areas on the west.

In 1965 Congress authorized funds for the construction of the Center Leg from Massachusetts to New York Avenues. The residents of the neighborhood, faced with an accomplished fact thought that there was no profit to be gained from fruitless attempts to block the entire project and began to analyze its objections, seeking for positive solutions to the problems created by the highway.

In November 1965, the Freeway Committee undertook negotiations with the D.C. Department of Highways and Traffic and together developed a proposal for air rights housing over the Center Leg.

The aim of the proposal was to provide housing for low and middle income families. The bridging over the highway would provide a broad and acceptable link to the neighborhood on the west-still proposed for residential use in the Downtown Renewal Feasibility Study.

Cost was a major concern since the construction of the deck and required ventilation system is expensive. If that cost were charged to housing, the rents would be too high for families who lived in the area. The Highway Department after discussion with District Officials and the Bureau of Public Roads agreed that increased cost caused by the highway itself would be charged to the highway. Because of its location in the heart of the downtown area, three blocks from Union Station, the speculative value of this deteriorated property was $16.50 a square foot. This is far in excess of a price for low and moderate income housing construction. The need for land price reduction through urban renewal writedown becomes obvious. The Freeway Residents Committee, again, with the Highway Department turned to the Redevelopment Land Agency who agreed: 1) that the area could qualify for urban renewal in view of its present blighted condition; and 2) that after acquisition, the land could be sold at a price that would make low moderate income housing feasible.

In the project report prepared by Tippetts, Abbott, McCarthy and Stratton, the land cost charged to the dwelling unit comes out to one dollar a foot, or $750 per dwelling unit. This low land cost is both the aim and the product of the high density housing required for the site. There are many justifications for high density housing:

1. The overriding need to develop each piece of buildable land to its highest holding capacity for housing low and moderate income families whose choices are so arbitrarily limited in this city;

2. The high initial acquisition cost of the land, reflecting its desirable location;

3. The cost of high rise construction in elevator buildings.

We worked with the consultants of the Highway Department throughout the process of elimination of the five alternative site plans and agree that this kind of design solution provides the most feasible plan.

There has been some question of the desirability of providing high-density housing units for low income families that this Committee would like to answer directly. The high-income families now have the choice of living in town in highrise apartments or in the suburbs in low-density developments. Our aim is to offer this freedom of choice to all families. For those of us who want to stay in the old neighborhood, close to relatives and friends, close to the in-town services and resources, close to transportation that takes us to our jobs, we want the right to remain. For those of us who choose another set of values, we would

want to see changes made which would permit low income families also to be able to choose freely to live in the suburbs, or in a new development in Anacostia or northeast, or in a "new town" created in a nearby rural area. If our choice involves a compromise dictated by economics, we want to measure the pros and cons ourselves.

We therefore urge you and your fellow members of the National Capital Planning Commission to approve the extension of Northwest One boundaries to provide for an air rights housing program over the Center Leg of the Inner Loop Freeway.

We have had very serious concerns about protection of residents from the noise and air pollution generated by the highway. We have received the preliminary engineering studies on ventilation of the tunnel and expulsion of air through the top of the ten-story buildings, which will be, in effect, twelve stories above the road bed. We are consulting the U.S. Public Health Services Air Pollution Center and a private consultant for independent evaluation of the plans for elimination of pollutants and noise.

Other details of the plan, such as the design, the financing, the final rent structure, and the social needs of the families also concern us. But we believe these can be worked out as the project is developed. We point out that the Northwest One Urban Renewal project is included in the Model Cities area and the proposed extended area can benefit from the additional funding that will be available for rent supplements, social programs, and physical facilities to serve the families.

We intend to press hard for solutions that meet our needs. We believe that the social, technological, and financial problems can be solved, and that we can work with the Planning Commission and the agencies of the District Government to solve them.

The principle of utilizing the land over the highway which is already under construction, is before you now. We urge you to measure your decision against your responsibility to plan for the solution of the gross shortage of decent housing for low income families in Washington. Viewed in this light, we know that you will agree with the residents of the community most directly affected by these problems that the extension of Northwest One boundaries to provide an additional 300 to 400 dwelling units for low and moderate income families is a significant step in the right direction. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS LAWRENCE, Chairman, Freeway Committee.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC,
Washington, D.C., July 22, 1967.

Mrs. PAULA D. ICHEVERRIA,
Housing Advisor, Urban League,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MRS. ICHEVERRIA: I am in receipt of your correspondence of July 10, 1967 sent to our consultant, Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy and Stratton concerning the proposed air-rights housing over the Center Leg Freeway. We are very much encouraged to note your support of this project and will be glad to assist you by furnishing the information you desire.

To this end, we are forwarding a cross-section showing the proposed Freeway, Housing and various other facilities which we propose to construct in this area. Please note that the distances from the tunnel portals to the housing structures are approximately 270 and 510 feet. We believe that these distances will completely eliminate noise and traffic fumes to the housing's occupants. As you are no doubt aware, this is the problem which has plagued residents of the (George) Washington Bridge Apartments in New York City. A distance of approximately 30 to 40 feet from edge of portal to high-rise structure was used in this case.

To further assure ourselves of elimination of motor vehicle fumes and noise and to safeguard the motorists using the Freeway, it is also our intention to install a forced draft ventilation system. This is shown on the attached drawing with arrows noting the flow of exhaust air from the tunnel through shafts in the

high-rise structures. As requested, the ventilation shafts passing throughout the parking deck and the building have been shown.

We regret that we are not able to furnish you with supporting calculations on the proposed ventilating system. During preliminary design of this nature, a minimal amount of calculations are made to ascertain that exhaust fumes may be vented. However, design of this nature is not unusual and since the housing area will be well separated from the Freeway, we believe we have eliminated the problems which have arisen with the Washington Bridge complex. As you are no doubt aware, tunnels under the Hudson River have required extensive ventilation systems which have worked for numerous years without causing unpleasantness to those who are adjacent to the ventilating structure.

While we were necessarily vague as to the ventilating system in our report, a system to take care of the anticipated volume of traffic may be designed quite easily. Although the criteria of design has not been set at this date, a maximum critical condition will most certainly be used. This condition would be a blockage of either all the north bound or south bound lanes of traffic causing a bumper to bumper stoppage throughout the entire length of the tunnel. We have already been assured by the consultant that the ventilation shafts through the highrise building have an adequate cross-section to carry the maximum load.

We regret the delay in responding to your request and hope that this information arrived in time to be of use. If we may be of further help, please do not hesitate to correspond with us.

Sincerely yours,

R. D. WALLACE, Acting Director.

Senator TYDINGS. Mrs Arlene Neil, member of the Board of Washington Urban League.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ARLENE NEIL, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

Mrs. NEIL. Senator Tydings, members of the Subcommittee on Busi- ness and Commerce.

I am Mrs. Arlene Neil, a member of the executive board of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council. I am on the board of directors of the Washington Urban League.

I am here today to present a joint statement on behalf of these two organizations and several civil rights and civic organizations, professional associations, and business groups.

We have joined together to express our general support for S. 1245, the Freeway Air Space Utilization Act, and S. 1246, the Public Space Utilization Act which would authorize the District Commissioners to put the air space above or below streets, alleys and freeways, to uses compatible with our city's pressing needs.

Should the District have the right to use air space to promote our city's orderly growth and development?

This is the central question of air space legislation: Whether or not the community should approve or reject additional proposed freeways is not an issue here.

Among the supporters of this testimony are groups who have opposed the proposed freeway system and groups who have supported it. This statement sets forth the common areas of agreement among our groups with regard to the need for air -rights legislation.

Our need to use airspace comes from a central fact. In the face of growing needs, the supply of available central city land is shrinking. The National Capital Planning Commission proposes comprehensive plan for the National Capital, outlining what are the city's anticipated needs over the next two decades.

« PreviousContinue »