To the Editor:

Olin Studio’s third presentation of proposed waterfront landscaping was a community engagement session that showed some small progress in meaningfully engaging the residents of Old Town — those most affected by these changes. It gave small groups of people time to talk together about the two design options, with all tables sharing their opinions in our usual neighborly way.

But, the city has a long way to go in achieving the goals it set for itself in “What’s Next Alexandria”, because in contrast to residents’ honest deliberation of two, quite different, potential landscape plans, the city really presented only one. This is rather like being given a dinner menu with two entrees: wild salmon, fresh caught by native Alaskans, lightly sauced with organic, grass-fed, cream and fresh herbs from the chef’s garden … and Atlantic salmon, pellet-fed, and broiled. Which would you choose?

In revisiting the session via the video posted to the city web site and re-reading the presentation document, one can see several things. Plan B, which was preferred by a number of residents’ groups for its open space and visual display of the river, had no “activation and programming” information. It remained a design without a purpose, half-thought out, seemingly not seriously considered. In contrast, Plan A, the more traditional design offered “Fitzgerald Square” hosting festivals of up to 750 people, standing, and Waterfront Park accommodating 1,500 people, standing. Taken together, the city also anticipates these areas could host a festival of 2,250 roving and standing people. Pt. Lumley Park is assigned a 750 person concert potential. Plan A has a purpose that is clearly communicated.

Aside from the impact of Plan A on the number of people parking, driving, using public transit, etc. it was impossible, literally, to see what the spaces of the other, very different, design with a diagonal walkway, is intended to oblige. What does the city have in mind? We don’t know.

And, briefly, community desires for key design elements remain a mystery. Analyzing the legible “stickies” shown in the presentation yielded: 2/42 for ice-skating; 1/42 for a market; 0/42 for kayaks. In the long lead up to waterfront development, only one young man, obviously an enthusiast, wanted kayaks on the waterfront at the foot of Prince Street. Perhaps, there is other city-owned data on “what citizens want” that is yet to be shared. We hope so.

Lastly, the local partner’s drawings for the “foot of King” were lovely to look at but did not reflect the Olin design. There was a water feature, but no water taxi pier or ticket building. The bike parking “hub”, a good thought, but far too small. The transit plan was messy. The flow from the square funneled onto Union street. Devilish details.

Could residents have made a better evaluation with a fair presentation? Definitely. Two hours were not enough, but going to the next step without knowing how shared citizen input is would be a violation of the city’s responsibility under the newly minted “What’s Next Alexandria” convention. To succeed, that agreement needs the city to act with greater honesty, integrity, and transparency. This was a good small move with room for much more.

Kathryn Papp

Alexandria