Kids Have iPads, But Teachers Don’t Have Training — Updated at 1:50 p.m. — Some fourth and sixth graders received iPad Air tablets (and ninth graders received MacBook Air laptops) from Arlington Public Schools this year, but many teachers have reportedly still not received formal training on how to use them, according to the Washington Post. (ARLnow.com hears that some students from other grades also received iPads.) While certain parents view the devices as “another screen,” others say the devices, if properly implemented in classrooms, can be used to educate students in an interactive way that they’re especially receptive to. [Washington Post]
Concrete Falling from I-66 Overpass — A local cycling advocate says chunks of concrete have been falling from the I-66 overpass over Lee Highway. [Windy Run]
Superintendent Makes Boundary Refinement Recs — Arlington Public Schools staff presented the superintendent’s recommendations for North Arlington elementary school boundary refinements to the School Board Thursday night. The changes would impact a relatively small number of students. A public hearing on the refinements is set for Jan. 15. [InsideNova]
Aquatics Center Still on Back Burner — Arlington County was hoping that D.C. might win the 2024 Summer Olympics bid so that it could build the stalled Long Bridge Park Aquatics and Fitness Center with Olympic funds. With hopes of that dashed, the county is now focusing on finding a way to build the aquatics center without using more than the $79.5 million allocated. The county may also start building the next planned phase of Long Bridge Park without the center. [Washington Post]
(Updated at 3:45 p.m.) Arlington will not award a contract for construction of the Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, delaying the project for at least a year, the county announced this afternoon.
The decision to cancel the bids for the facility follows an effort by County Manager Barbara Donnellan and her staff to work with construction companies to “value engineer” the project and lower costs. The bids initially came in well above the level necessary to keep the aquatics center within its original $79 million projected cost. Even with cheaper furnishings and other cut corners, however, we’re told the revised cost estimate “got close but not close enough.”
With $42.5 million in bond funding and a $15 million developer contribution already in place, that puts the County Board in a position in which it must approve additional taxpayer funds, scale back the design of the facility, or seek private funding. For now, the county will seek private funds.
County Board Chair Jay Fisette said the aquatic’s center design resulted from an extensive community outreach process that took into account its location near the Potomac River, within view of I-395 and major D.C. monuments.
“This facility resulted from [a community needs assessment] and then took several years to design,” he said. “I still think that to fulfill that plan is the right way to go. But I understand that staying within the previous budget is also appropriate.”
Fisette said the county will now seek funding from a private entity. Possibilities include a corporate sponsorship and naming rights, working with a for-profit operator, or partnering with a university or other institution.
Kettler Capitals Iceplex in Ballston is one such facility built by the county but operated by a rent-paying, for-profit entity. The fields at Long Bridge Park and Barcroft Baseball Field #6 are partially paid for under partnerships with Marymount University and George Washington University, respectively.
A corporate sponsor may be interested in the naming rights to the facility, especially given its high-visibility location. Fisette said he’d be open to having the facility known as the Under Armor or the Nike Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, among other potential sponsors.
“The goal is to identify any balance of funding beyond those already approved by the voters,” Fisette said. “This is an unusual and exceptional opportunity for someone who would like to have that visibility.”
What might make the opportunity more exceptional, according to county officials, is D.C’s bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympic Games. Later this month, the United States Olympic Committee is expected to narrow down the list of U.S. cities being considered as an Olympic host. Should D.C. be on that list, it could give a boost to the effort to attract sponsorships, given that the new aquatics center is likely to be one of the facilities used for the games.
“We are under the impression that as they move forward with their bid, that this site is included in their plans,” according to Fisette.
The county will “aggressively pursue private funding support” over the next 6-8 months, Fisette said. Donnellan plans to report back to the County Board in mid-2015, prior to any additional bonds being sold. Should attempts to find private funds prove unsuccessful, the next steps for the facility are “yet to be determined.”
The county press release on the announcement, after the jump.
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Last Friday, ARLnow.com posted a story that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering “a policy change that would lower the maximum allowable building heights near airports.”
That story mentioned a new bill proposed by Rep. Jim Moran and Congressional co-sponsors that would require the FAA to adopt its new building height restrictions through a “standard rulemaking procedure” rather than through a “proposed policy.” The difference between these two alternatives is that the standard rulemaking procedure involves consideration of more factors and evidence than the proposed policy approach.
Regardless of which procedure the FAA ultimately has to follow, it is not clear from either the ARLnow.com story or from the FAA formal announcement precisely what the FAA’s new height limitations will be, nor which geographic areas of Arlington will be subject to them.
But, it is clear that the Aquatics Center site at Long Bridge Park is directly in the airport’s flight path. Therefore, there is a reasonable possibility that the height of the roof of the currently-proposed design for the Aquatics Center — a height needed to accommodate the King’s Dominion-style water slide – will have to be lowered to meet the FAA’s proposed new height restrictions.
Given the FAA’s commitment to lower its height restrictions, it would be irresponsible for Arlington to proceed to a bid process for construction of the Aquatics Center without a binding agreement with the FAA that Arlington’s final design for this facility has FAA approval.
To the best of my knowledge, Arlington County does not have such a binding agreement with the FAA. If the FAA refuses to provide Arlington with such an agreement, the FAA’s refusal ought to be yet another reason to scale back the current Aquatics Center design. With so many other competing priorities, like the schools capacity crisis, “the community does not ‘need’ this gold-plated Aquatics Center, and we should not move forward with it even if we could do so within the whopping $80 million price tag we thought it would cost” as recently as last year.
Moreover, the continually-escalating construction costs for the current Aquatics Center design (now well north of $80 million) will be followed by the even more rapidly escalating annual operating costs of the current design (up from $450,000 per year only thre years ago to $3.8 million per year at last count).
The current Aquatics Center design is fundamentally flawed because it contains too many extravagant features. It’s time substantially to scale back the current design, and develop a new design for a sensible pool and recreation center at Long Bridge Park.
Peter Rousselot is a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Rising costs have led critics to push for the aquatics center to either be scaled back or scrapped altogether. In a letter to the editor, one Arlington resident says that an aquatics facility — even one downsized from the current plans — should still be built so those who can’t afford private aquatics facilities can enjoy the year-round fitness benefits of swimming.
Swimming is one of the few sports that people can continue well into their dotage. Yes, there is a need for the new facility because it offers pools that are warmer for both lessons and for older muscles that cramp in colder water. Providing active recreation that keeps joints functioning decreases the demand on other County facilities to care for elder clients.
Many older folks are long term residents of this county. For years we have paid for schools, park activities, and fields that we didn’t use with little complaint. It is our tax support that has created the County you now enjoy. Private year-round facilities are out of many retiree price range or do not offer activities that we can use.
It is not asking too much to afford older residents the opportunity to swim in a “subsidized” pool when they have paid and continue to pay County taxes with little other use of County facilities.
Too many younger, upwardly-mobile new residents of Arlington think of themselves and their desires with little concern for others in the County. They make the assumption that anyone who is not in their earning pool and who needs subsidy are the takers of society. Now where have we heard that mindset before? Hopefully, most residents of Arlington still believe in some form of economic equity that allows all county residents to enjoy the bounty of Arlington regardless of their income bracket. No one can tell when the advantaged become the ones who need assistance as many of us have experienced.
Yes, we need a new aquatic facility in Arlington, not a lavish facility, but one that offers all-day the capabilities to satisfy a wide array of ages and physical needs. Yes, building in Arlington is expensive but we can reassess construction needs and build with the funds already allotted. Yes, this facility did not come out of the blue nor was it designed in a vacuum. The public committee that has worked with County staff on the planning of this facility for over ten years has expressed their willingness to return to the planning process and produce yet another set of plans that have a better chance of meeting cost constraints. Let’s give them a chance to work with the County to produce a product that meets aesthetic as well as practical needs.
– Suzanne Bolton, Claremont
To submit a letter to the editor, please email it to email@example.com. Letters to the editor may be edited for content and brevity.
The planned Long Bridge Park aquatics center has been the subject of controversy lately — as critics decry its rising projected construction and operating costs.
But for one Arlington resident, who spoke at Saturday’s County Board meeting, the facility does represent an unmet need in Arlington.
During the meeting’s public comment period, Cynthia Siton told the Board that the facility could serve residents with multiple sclerosis, like herself. She said that the three existing pools are inadequate for MS sufferers because the water temperature is kept too high, forcing her to use Fairfax County pools instead.
“In the summer I find that the pools in the county — the three county pools — the water is too warm,” she said. “Fairfax County pools tend to keep their water cooler, which is very important for people with MS.”
Siton explained the importance of cooler temperatures for MS patients.
“It’s important during exercise to keep the body at a cool temperature,” she said. “That is, also one of the reasons that I favor pool expansion. There are very few exercises that people with MS can engage in because exercise naturally raises the body temperature, bringing on symptoms. Swimming is a way to get exercise and maintain a pretty steady body temperature.”
In response, County Board Chairman Jay Fisette revealed that his own brother had been diagnosed with MS approximately a year and a half ago. Fisette said he understands the dangers of overheating.
“Heat is not healthy for someone with MS, I hadn’t actually thought about that in terms of aquatics or swimming, but it makes complete sense from what I know,” he said.
In addition to an 80-86 degree teaching pool, supporters of the aquatics center point out that it will include a therapy pool that could be used by seniors and other groups that need a more specialized swimming environment than that offered by the three existing county pools, which are located in Arlington’s public high schools.
The Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility project is currently on hold. Earlier this month, Arlington County Manager Barbara Donnellan ordered her staff to review the costs of the facility and recommend a plan — which could mean downsizing or cancelling the project.
Siton said she hopes for the best.
“My hope is these pools will afford people to swim in environments where they’re comfortable getting in and out of the pool and swimming comfortably in the lanes.”
The following was sent in response to last week’s letter to the editor, “The Case for Long Bridge Park Phase 2.”
I am an Arlington resident and have been for 15 years. I would like to respond to Eric Cassel, President Friends of Long Bridge Park. First he makes the case that the target audience for this lavish facility is increasing in Arlington County. Target audience? Elementary school age children — I have lived in six states while I was growing up. In not one state was there a swimming facility for us to learn how to swim. How did this become a necessity for elementary school children? At what point did “we” decide that my elementary schooling when I was a child was lacking?
My parents took me to the YMCA to learn how to swim. We have one of those very close to the Pentagon City / Crystal City area. Why is it the tax payers responsibility to teach others children how to swim? Second, young urban professionals. We have gyms with pools in this area already. I belong to sport and health. The pool is rarely crowded. They can well afford to pay a gym membership. Again, why is it taxpayers responsibility to subsidize young urban professionals’ desire to swim? There are also the Arlington County high school pools that they are free to join at a great discount to them! Thirdly, the elderly. See my comments about the young professionals. In addition, not well-off elderly receive subsidizes from the County already. Why suddenly a “new need” for them to swim at taxpayer expense.
We already have Hayes Park for events of all sorts and a soccer field, basket ball courts, and tennis courts. Is this not enough? Why must the taxpayers now foot the bill for an overly expensive facility that supporters are attempting to portray as a requirement and entitlement?
To submit a letter to the editor, please email it to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters to the editor may be lightly edited for content and brevity.
The Right Note is a weekly opinion column published on Thursdays. The views and opinions expressed in the column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
In November 2012, voters approved a bond that was titled “Local Parks and Recreation.” The primary part of that bond package was $50 million to complete funding for a new south Arlington swimming center which had a total price tag estimated at $75 million.
As it turns out, that still may not be enough. County Manager Barbara Donnellan had to halt forward progress on the new facility when bids came in well over the already-generous cost estimates. This was on top of the recent announcement that annual taxpayer subsidies for the ongoing operational costs of the project were ballooning dramatically over the original cost estimates. The new estimate is that the aquatics center will operate at a deficit of $4 million per year.
In 2012, the voters did give the “parks and recreation” bond 10 percent less of the vote than the community infrastructure bond, and 17 percent less than the schools and Metro bonds. It seems a larger percentage of voters than usual had concerns about the swimming facility than they usually do over local infrastructure spending. However, it is still tough to defeat a ballot measure that sounds as benign as “Local Parks and Recreation.”
As I was standing in line to vote 15 months ago, I recall hearing a mom explaining the bond votes to her elementary school-aged daughter. “We need good parks,” she said in explaining why she was voting for the bond. Maybe she knew the aquatics center was included and just wanted to simplify it for her daughter, or maybe she did not.
Either way, this is a perfect case in point for the need to have large bond issues stand on their own for votes. If the County Board is proposing a bond for more than $10 million on a single project, why not let us vote it up or down as a standalone measure?
The answer is quite simple. If the bond description had been “$50 million to complete a $75 million community swimming facility,” the County Board may have lost the vote. And, it is the same rationale by which Board members have resisted allowing even a token straight up or down vote on the Columbia Pike trolley.
Mark Kelly is a former Arlington GOP Chairman and two-time Republican candidate for Arlington County Board.
Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.
Several weeks ago the news broke that the annual operating subsidy Arlington would have to provide to the Aquatics Center had ballooned from $1.9 million to $3.8 million. Just three years ago, the County’s “high” estimate of the annual operating subsidy was $450,000.
On Dec. 12, I recommended that the County Board direct the County Manager to “halt all further work on the Aquatics Center… and develop a new, cost-effective design for a sensible recreation center at Long Bridge Park (including a swimming pool).” Little did I know when I wrote that December column that the construction bids to build this facility also would come in so much higher than anticipated.
In the face of more and more new information about the vastly higher operating and capital costs of this facility, it is very disappointing that some of our current elected leaders, and some of those who want to succeed them, stubbornly cling to the belief that all of the design elements in this project are sacrosanct.
For example, ARLnow.com quotes County Board Chair Jay Fisette as attempting to justify his continued support for the project because “more than a decade was spent on the Center’s design” and “exaggerations about the exact extent of the cost increases have been ‘celebrated by long-time opponents of the facility.’”
Our elected leaders should be offering us a contrite acknowledgement that despite over a decade of planning, they have allowed the current design to proceed laden with so many extravagant features. Planning should be judged by the wisdom of the final decision—not the length of time it takes to make it. In the new normal of Arlington’s economy, with 20 percent commercial office vacancy rates and our public schools bursting at the seams, sticking with the current design is a luxury we cannot afford.
Similarly out of touch is Alan Howze — one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the County Board seat soon to be vacated by Chris Zimmerman. ARLnow.com quotes Howze as saying there “clearly is a need in the community” for the Aquatics Center, and “we should move forward… if we can do it within the budget we’ve allocated for it”. With so many other competing priorities, the community does not “need” this gold-plated Aquatics Center, and we should not move forward with it even if we could do so within the whopping $80 million price tag we thought it would cost as recently as one month ago.
It’s long past time for the Aquatics Center to downsize or die.
Peter Rousselot is a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.
Arlington County Manager Barbara Donnellan announced late Friday afternoon that construction bids for the first phase of the Long Bridge Park aquatics center came in “significantly higher” than the $79.3 million projected cost. As a result, Donnellan says she will not be recommending a construction contract for County Board approval in early 2014, as planned.
Donnellan said it was “disappointing” that the bids far exceeded the estimate provided by its architect, which was in turn backed up by a third-party firm.
“The high bids were particularly disappointing because the County had done extensive due diligence to ensure that the estimate was sound and within the available budget,” she said in a statement. “We took an additional step of contracting separately with an engineering firm to review design and construction documents and provide independent third party cost estimates.”
“Once staff concludes its assessment of the bids and our architects’ estimates, I will present options to the County Board for next steps,” she continued. “In the months ahead, the County Board and the community will continue their careful consideration of the costs and benefits of building and operating this facility as we shape the FY 2015 Budget and the Capital Improvement Program.”
Reached by phone Friday evening, Donnellan told ARLnow.com that she expects to receive recommendations from county staff as early as February. She declined to speculate about the recommendation, saying that there’s significant work and analysis left to be done by staff.
Donnellan also declined to specify how many bids were received and how much higher those bids were than the estimate, citing legal constraints.
News of the delay in the project comes just a month after news that the aquatics center’s operating deficit would be 2 to 4 times that of original estimates. Local fiscal watchdog Wayne Kubicki says the county should consider scrapping the project altogether.
“This project has been mishandled by the County Board almost from the beginning,” he said. “With the pressures on other parts of the county and school budgets and the stagnation of commercial real estate values, it might well be time to moth ball the Long Bridge aquatics facility and simply leave the current park as-is.”
Construction bids received by the county for the project were technically for “Phase 2” of Long Bridge Park, which encompasses both the initial phase of the aquatics center and minor improvements to the park itself, including “public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways.” Much of the funding for the projected cost of Phase 2 has already been secured, including $42.5 million from a parks bond approved in 2012 and $15 million from Vornado as part of the PenPlace development.
A Phase 3A and 3B, for other park improvements, are also planned, as is a Phase 4, which would complete the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility by adding a large “multiple activity center,” additional fitness space, racquetball and squash courts, a climbing wall, an elevated jogging trail, rental meeting rooms and a 547-space underground parking garage.
“Long Bridge Park is an ambitious project for our community, an infrastructure investment that is transforming a one-time industrial wasteland from a brownfield to an iconic gateway on the Potomac,” Donnellan said in her statement. “It will provide multiple recreational opportunities for our growing population and for future generations.”
(Updated at 2:30 p.m.) Democratic Arlington County Board member Libby Garvey is explaining in more depth why she has decided to endorse an independent candidate to fill the Board seat to be vacated by Democrat Chris Zimmerman at the end of January.
Garvey is endorsing self-identified Republican John Vihstadt, who announced last week that he would run as an independent in the spring 2014 special election.
Garvey stated that none of the three announced Democratic candidates likely will change the way the current Board members set priorities. She decided to endorse Vihstadt instead because she believes he can provide change.
“The issue is that I don’t think there is a Democratic candidate that has or is going to announce for the endorsement that is going to alter the dynamic on the County Board right now… Vihstadt by far is so much closer to my values, my way of working,” Garvey told ARLnow.com. “He’s going to be the one to help me take the county in the direction I think it needs to go and the others will not. I am a Democrat, but in this case there is not a Democratic candidate that can do what needs to be done for Arlington. John can do that. So I’ve got to support him, why would I not? That’s what’s right for Arlington.”
She said Vishstadt “gets it” and he can help change the way current Board members operate.
“My colleagues are all good people, but they’ve been doing things a certain way for a very long time,” Garvey said. “I think we need a new perspective and a fresh way of looking at things, and John will bring that.”
One of the key reasons Garvey will not provide support to a fellow Democrat is her opposition to the Columbia Pike streetcar. Vihstadt also opposes the streetcar, writing in his announcement of candidacy last week, “Now that the County’s application for federal funding has been rejected, Arlington taxpayers may be directly on the hook to finish a five mile line that will displace small businesses and affordable housing, will not connect to the Pentagon, and which fails to materially improve Pike transit.”
Although Arlington currently maintains a triple-A bond rating, Garvey believes the streetcar eventually could prove “financially disastrous” for the county. She noted that the project still can be re-evaluated considering it will be a while before final votes are taken.
“I know they all talk about how it’s a done deal, but it’s not a done deal until we sign a contract with a company and commit hundreds of millions of dollars to pay that company to build this thing. We’re not anywhere near that yet,” she said.
“The streetcar is useless and will actually make things worse on the Pike,” she continued. “A streetcar is nothing more than a bus on tracks with wires, but it costs a whole lot more… There are ways to accomplish what you want to for a whole lot less.”
Garvey believes a significant amount of money in the county’s Transportation Capital Fund that’s set aside for the streetcar could be used for more beneficial projects such as Metro funding and street paving.
“We’d have to raise taxes to do that right now because all of this money is sitting in a fund that is, as I understand it, reserved for the streetcar,” she said. “This is, again, why I’m supporting John, because I believe he will help me to get the Board to sort of re-examine some of these things and work through the community with it.”
The Aquatics Center hasn’t been built yet, and it shouldn’t be built. The County Board should scrap its Olympian pretensions and its desire to build King’s Dominion North at the expense of Arlington taxpayers. The board should explain its decision as follows: “We have made a mistake, and we are going to fix it. We have new information, and we are going to act on it.”
The board immediately should direct the County Manager to halt all further work on the Aquatics Center. The board should notify the manager that the board no longer wishes to build this facility. The board should direct the manager to develop a new, cost-effective design for a sensible recreation center at Long Bridge Park (including a swimming pool).
The latest chapter in this problem-plagued project began when the Sun Gazette posted a story stating that “what had been an expected annual operating deficit of $1 million to $1.3 million has now ballooned to more than $4 million.” It’s not clear at the moment whether the ballooning deficit is due to lower than projected revenues or higher than projected expenses or a combination of both.
More than 80 percent of respondents to a recent ARLnow.com poll said that the Aquatics Center should not be built if this latest $4 million annual operating deficit projection turns out to be accurate. As I have written previously, this is just the latest in a string of warnings about the countless flaws in this project.
Commenting on the ARLnow.com Aquatics Center story that accompanied the latest poll, James Breiling nailed it:
“Office building occupancy has dived,” he writes. “The county is close to the set limit on bond borrowing. Taxpayers are rightly concerned about tax increases. So, funds are constrained. Accordingly, I suggest that THE question is the relative priority of the aquatics center via other things, in particular, providing facilities and staff needed to educate the surge in ACPS enrollment.”
That is, indeed, THE question.
THE answer: the Aquatics Center has far too low a priority and should be cancelled.
Arlington County is explaining changes to the cost estimate for the Long Bridge Park Aquatic and Fitness Center, following the news that costs are expected to be higher than anticipated.
The aquatics center, scheduled to open in the summer of 2016, had been projected to have an annual operating deficit of $1 million to $1.3 million. That number has been upped to $4.3 million. But Department of Parks and Recreation Director Jane Rudolph said in a statement that comparing those numbers is not comparing “apples to apples.”
Rudolph explained that the original numbers published in the 2012 Capital Improvement Plan were in “2012 numbers,” whereas the new estimate is adjusted for inflation with “2020 numbers.” The statement reads, in part, “The 2012 tax support number — of $1.1 to $1.4 million if presented at a 2020 level would range from $1.4 million to $1.9 million. The 2020 tax support number presented in the November 2013 revenue and expense forecast ($4.3 million) was at the maximum of the range (as it should have been). The apples to apples increase in estimates is $2.4 million.”
In her statement, Rudolph lists the following factors as reasons for the increase:
- “Once we had final design drawings for the facility, we were able to more fully develop the aquatics program and determine the appropriate level of lifeguards to meet safety sightlines for maximum utilization of the four pool areas while maintaining industry standards. As a result, the estimated cost of lifeguards increased.”
- “The current projections assume full staffing by maintenance during each hour of pool operation. We are not sure that this will be the final approach. This added considerable cost.”
- “The projected revenue in the November estimate is less than that included in the 2012 CIP. We have researched similar facilities, looked at the attendance data, and came to a conservative approach to our revenue projections for membership, daily passes, and rentals. We hope that this strategy enables us to be pleasantly surprised when we open our doors to the community.”
The county plans to continue reviewing the costs and service levels for the facility over the next two years. The tax support estimates cover costs both for the indoor aquatic and fitness center and for the eight acres of new outdoor parkland.
“Remember, these are projections for a given point in time and the numbers will still be refined,” said Rudolph. “I do want to reiterate that the numbers published in November are a forecast. We will continue to refine our programming and scrub our numbers to ensure that we operate the facility at its most cost-efficient level while still providing a high quality experience for our patrons.”
So far, none of the bond funds authorized for the facility by voters in 2012 have been spent. In early 2014, the County Board is expected to be presented with a more refined range of operating budgets and a request to award a contract.
The facility is expected to take four years to “realize its full expenses and revenues” after it opens in 2016.
Projected Subsidy Soars for Aquatics Center — The planned Long Bridge Park Aquatics Center could require more than $4 million per year in subsidies from the county government, according to new projections. That’s up from projections as low at $1 million per year. “Certainly there are other priorities that arguably should come before building a luxury pools facility,” said local fiscal watchdog Wayne Kubicki. Construction contracts for the aquatics center are expected to be awarded early next year. [Sun Gazette]
County May Allow Less Office Parking, For a Fee — Arlington County is considering a system that would allow office developers to build less than the currently-required amount of parking, in exchange for a per-parking-space fee. The fee would then be used for public improvements in the area around the building, or for Transportation Demand Management Services for the building’s tenants. [Greater Greater Washington]
Memorial Bridge Could Have Looked Like Tower Bridge — The Arlington Memorial Bridge was originally proposed as a memorial to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, complete with a series of “medieval”-looking towers and turrets. [Ghosts of DC]
Arlington Carpenter’s Intricately-Carved Birds — Arlington carpenter Jeff Jacobs, 59, carves intricate wooden hummingbirds out of a single block of wood. He sells the birds at Eastern Market and the Clarendon farmers market. [Washington Post]
Flickr photo by Eschweik
(Update at 1:20 p.m.) Construction on the new Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, originally slated to begin this fall, has been pushed back.
Work on the approximately $80 million facility, located just north of Crystal City near I-395, is now not expected to begin until early 2014, according to Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Susan Kalish.
“To ensure that we have quality general contractors bidding… we decided to undertake an extensive pre-qualification process,” Kalish explained. “That process is now complete and we have our selected pool of contractors. The bidding process will take place over the next several months. We anticipate that construction will begin in early 2014.”
The authorized bidders on the project are: Manhattan Construction Company, Hess Construction + Engineering Services, The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Christman/Apex LLC, A Joint Venture Partnership, Balfour Beatty Construction and Gilbane Building Company.
The project’s budget has not changed, Kalish said, but the expected opening date has been pushed back to early 2016. We were earlier told that the opening date had not changed, which is incorrect.
The aquatics center will include a 50 meter by 25 yard fitness and competition pool, a family leisure pool, a hot water therapy pool, a “teaching pool,” and a “free-form water play area that will… have a lazy river, slides, play features and a zero-depth ‘beach’ entry.” The facility will also have amenities like a gym, an exercise center, a climbing wall, an indoor track, racquetball courts and meeting rooms.
It could have competed against Arlington County’s planned Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, but instead a proposal to build a massive sports and entertainment complex in Alexandria has been withdrawn.
It was announced in June that a company had submitted an unsolicited proposal to transform Alexandria’s Hensley Park into a sports and entertainment facility. The proposed complex included features like an Olympic-sized pool and water play area; basketball, volleyball, baseball and gymnastics centers; ice rinks; indoor tennis and squash courts; a climbing wall; and a driving range.
A pool, water play area, climbing wall and racquetball courts are all also part of Arlington’s plan for the Long Bridge Park facility. (County Board Chair Walter Tejada said in June that he did not expect the Alexandria proposal to impact the county’s plans.)
The St. James Group LLC announced yesterday (Tuesday) that it was withdrawing its unsolicited proposal after discovering that Hensley Park was acquired by Alexandria, in part, via a small federal grant. The grant prohibits development of the park.
The company says it will now seek other D.C. area locations for the complex.
“SJG remains committed to developing the premier sports and entertainment complex in the region,” the company said in a press release. Read the full press release, after the jump.