A Setback for CityCenter
19 07 2010We just got word that one of the biggest potential new tenants of the CityCenter project on the site of the old convention center has decided to back out of the development. Mega law firm Skadden is staying put in their offices near the White House on New York Ave. Over the last two years, developers Archstone and Hines have been trying to sign major tenants to help kick start the construction phase of the the six building 2.5 million square feet of development to mostly no avail… so this comes as a big blow.
Considering the location out of all the places to start building on spec, this may be one of the best bets in town, but we understand how the developers want to secure their tenants before breaking ground.
Guess we have a few more years of a giant parking lot, instead of a vibrant “city center” like the rendering above. At least the trapeze school will be around for a little longer! [Renderings: Shalom Barnes]
sure, the trapeze school will be around a little longer…except it’s already down by the navy yard, and has been for quite a while. when was the last time you actually went by this giant parking lot to look at it?
I hope the retail component gets serious consideration - downtown could use another retail anchor: Lord & Taylor, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom, Saks, Target…. let’s put the “center” back in Metro Center!
Yeah, I hope this project is provides the critical mass for downtown retail. It’s probably the last best hope to ever see DT DC become a regional retail destination, like Chi, Bos, SF. Plus an extra 600 residential units will be a much needed addition.
I could care less about another bland 10-story 5-9 office box. Although, I understand office space is probably neccisary for financial reseasons. I hope they can find a way to at least start the project without the office componient. This project has been delayed too long already.
I wish this project all the best. In plan and massing it has a lot going for it, but the facades are abysmal. How is yet another grid pattern in glass and concrete going to enliven any street scape? The trees are nice, but the fautoshoped people will never materialize if you don’t give them something pleasant to look at.
Memo to Shalome, stop trying to impress you’re fellow architects as to how much of a modernist badass you are and start trying to impress the people who’ll actually use your building for a change.
From what I understand, Skadden pulled out because the developers couldn’t get construction financing. If they can’t get construction financing when they have a large, well-known law firm as a prospective tenant, how could they ever build on spec?
Sure, I am looking fwd to the development here. But as someone whose office faces the space, I also like it the way it is. It’s nice to have open space, and I am worried about all that loss of parking.
I wish it could be repurposed as a downtown park with shopping pavillions like the embarcadero center in SF.
Downtown needs high density development and activity-generating uses to thrive, not surface parking lots and more open space. Tending to the existing parks and more shade trees along the streets, however, would be great.
I look at this project like a Reston Town Center in the city. I am not sure how architecture plays into the attitudes if the people who want to shop there? A lot of Reston Town Center retail is in parking garages and it doesn’t seem to affect the patronage. If the project is planned well and has the mix of tenants people want, I am sure it will be successful regardless of the modern glass facades.
@IMGoph - It should be clear that the Trapeze school is no longer downtown, which is why “it will be around a little longer” regardless of what happens to the convention center site. You notice we also linked to the site of the trapeze school which also says their location.
I can’t say that I fault Skadden for that decision. IMHO, the blame for the continued existence of a massive surface parking lot in the middle of downtown rests largely on city planning officials, who were all too quick to build a new convention center in Shaw, and to blow up the old convention center with no plans whatsoever for what might replace it.
Nearly a decade after that transpired, what do we have to show for it? We have a new convention center that has had a very negligible impact on its sorrounding area, and a big parking lot where the old one used to sit. That’s just poor planning all around on the part of the city.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this development will *never* go up, but I think it’s going to be years before you see any meaningful activity at the site–and that’s a tremendous shame.
dcmetrocentric: your phrasing about the trapeze school is odd. why even mention it, then, if it’s clear that it’s no longer at this location. it’s basically a non sequitir. you could have said “at least the arboretum will still be around for a little longer.