ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN
⬚ figure
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Economics Research Associates
⬚ figure
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Economics Research Associates
Prepared by: Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Economic Research Associates, Inc.
Under Contract To: City of Alexandria, Virginia
2002
ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN
Successful long-range plans are usually created as the result of a comprehensive, collaborative effort reflecting a wide range of views. The Open Space Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia is no exception. As described in detail in this report, the plan had the benefit of input from the community at large, from many of its relevant organizations, and from appropriate City agencies and commissions.
However, the Open Space Steering Committee, appointed to guide the development of the plan, was involved most intensively in this effort. This group included:
This stalwart group met early in the morning, on a monthly basis, for over a year to help define the City’s open space needs and guide the development of the plan. They deserve much thanks and credit for an outstanding effort. They have helped define Alexandria’s open space legacy for many years to come.
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 4 |
|---|
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION | 8 A. The Planning Process | 9
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT FRAMEWORK | 11 A. History of Open Space in Alexandria | 11 B. Administration of Alexandria’s Public Open Space | 12 C. Earlier Park and Open Space Planning Efforts | 14 D. Defining and Classifying Open Space | 14 E. Open Space Inventory | 18 F. Park System Inventory | 25
CHAPTER 3: OPEN SPACE NEEDS AND ISSUES | 29 A. Demographic Context | 29 B. Open Space Issues | 33 C. Open Space Need | 39
CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY PROCESS: A SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS | 40 A. A Strategy for Community Involvement | 40 B. The Preliminary Vision | 41 C. Citywide Open Space Summit | 43
CHAPTER 5: THE PLAN | 46 A. Open Space Opportunities | 46 B. Conceptual Framework | 47 C. Goals, Recommendations and Implementation | 50
CHAPTER 6: PLAN PRIORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES | 81 A. Priority Actions | 81 B. Funding Sources and Strategies | 83 C. Conclusions | 97
REFERENCES | 99
APPENDICES | Open Space Classification Overview | Summary of Planning District Meetings | Summary of Open Space Summit Comments |
ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN
⬚ figure
Market Square facing Alexandria’s City Hall
As one of the most densely populated cities in the nation, Alexandria faces a continuous struggle to provide enough open space for all its residents. With a growing and increasingly diverse population clamoring for open space options in the context of a dwindling supply of potential open spaces areas, the city must develop a strategy to respond to these conflicting pressures. The Open Space Plan presented in this document establishes a framework for addressing Alexandria’s short and longer term open space needs. It defines an approach that maximizes the City’s limited open space opportunities by creating a system that builds upon the City’s dense, urban condition. It begins by acknowledging and protecting the City’s existing open spaces, and goes on to identify additional open space opportunities for the future.
⬚ figure
Existing park at the Potomac River waterfront
There is a clear desire for additional open space for both active and passive purposes. Yet, enormous efforts will be required simply to maintain the existing ratio of open space per capita as Alexandria’s population continues to grow. Between 1990 and 2000, the ratio of open space compared to population stayed constant because the City added 125 acres of open space. Population projections for the year 2012 require that the City add another 100 acres of open space to maintain that ratio. And that number assumes that existing public open space will not be diminished.
⬚ figure
Four Mile Run
Against this backdrop, the City’s need for an Open Space Plan becomes critical. The plan was developed through a collaborative community process that included monthly meetings with an Open Space Steering Committee, three Planning District meetings, and a citywide Open Space Summit.
As the result of this process, a series of 15 open space goals were identified. These form the overall framework for the Open Space Plan:
Goal 1. Protect and enrich existing parks
Goal 2. Develop innovative opportunities for creating additional open space
Goal 3. Review and complete implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan and include additional parkland where appropriate
Goal 4. Protect, expand, and connect stream valleys and other environmentally sensitive areas
Goal 5. Create an open space network in new development areas
⬚ figure
Streetscape at King Street
Goal 6. Protect and preserve institutional open space
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
⬚ figure
King Street metro and surrounding urban fabric
⬚ figure
Potomac River waterfront
⬚ figure
Holmes Run Stream Valley
⬚ figure
Existing trails
⬚ figure
Potomac River waterfront
Goal 7. Maximize use of public school open space areas
Goal 8. Preserve and protect cemeteries
Goal 9. Create public open space from vacant land
Goal 10. Link and expand pedestrian, bicycle and trail system
Goal 11. Enhance streetscapes and gateways
Goal 12. Expand citywide street tree program and protect existing trees and woodland areas
Goal 13. Encourage the creation of Civic Parks at and adjacent to Metro stations
Goal 14. Beautify interchanges and highway corridors
Goal 15. Protect privately owned open space
The plan presents recommended actions and implementation strategies for each defined goal. It also defines those actions that the City needs to make its first priority in implementing the Open Space Plan. These priority actions include:
ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
⬚ figure
Potomac River shoreline
⬚ figure
Mount Vernon recreational center
⬚ figure
Historical Old Town, Alexandria
Because all of the above priorities cannot be tackled simultaneously, it is suggested that the City consider the following timeframe sequence as a guideline for implementing the above actions:
Year 1:
Years 2-3:
Years 3-5:
Years 5-7:
Finally, the Open Space Plan identifies and describes potential funding sources and strategies. Operational funding strategies, as well as sources of public and institutional grants, are discussed. Funding/strategies include:
ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN 6
⬚ figure
Plan of Alexandria shows original street grid pattern (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections)
Since surveyors first laid it out in 1749, Alexandria has been a city that has struggled to provide enough open space for its residents. Because Alexandria originated as a mercantile center, where goods brought in by ship and wagon were bought and sold, it was a place that revolved around commerce. The streets of "Old Town" were laid out in a grid pattern, with every inch of land planned in a manner that would maximize economic interests, with lots intended for residences, stores, warehouses, and taverns. Because open spaces did not contribute to the burgeoning economy of the town, no parks were planned. Indeed, there was only one public place laid out in the entire community – Market Square, then facing Cameron Street – and that was for the conduct of business (Seale, 2000).
⬚ figure
Goods were brought to Alexandria by ships and wagons (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the William Francis Smith Collection).
In the 253 years since its founding, Alexandria has expanded into a city that covers almost 16 square miles, and has grown to a population of more than 128,000 people. The city has one of the densest concentrations of population in the United States, with a mix of residential and commercial uses in both urban and suburban neighborhoods. While Alexandria is now an integral part of the regional economy of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area, the City has maintained its own distinctive heritage. Fortunately, as Alexandria has grown, so have its open spaces. The Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities now owns and maintains 127 parks, ranging in size from large citywide parks such as Fort Ward Park in western Alexandria (41 acres) to small neighborhood parks like Monticello Park in the central part of the City (4.7 acres). Several of these parks, such as Founders’ Park in Old Town, provide the public with access to one of Alexandria’s greatest natural resources: the Potomac River. Others allow residents access to the City’s sensitive stream corridors that run throughout. Still others provide opportunities for both active and passive recreational pursuits in settings that range from completely urban to more suburban neighborhood in context.
⬚ figure
Market square, 1880 (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from Harper's New Monthly Magazine)
The growth of the City’s open space areas, however, has not been enough to overcome the bounds of history. Because Alexandria existed and continued to expand for over 200 years before the establishment of a park system, the City has always, in essence, been playing catch up. Added to that are the pressures of a present day population that has become more diverse and has increased by over 15% between 1990 and 2000, in a city with finite boundaries and an ever-dwindling supply of potential open space areas. Moreover, Alexandrians value open space and use it both heavily and extensively. This has placed enormous pressure on the City’s existing open space areas, and underlines the need both to protect the open spaces that exist as well as to create additional open space opportunities that are equitably distributed throughout Alexandria to serve all of the City’s population.
The Plan presented in this report establishes a framework for addressing Alexandria’s short and longer term open space needs. It looks at ways to maximize the City’s limited open space opportunities by creating an open space system that builds upon and responds to the City’s dense, urban context. It is clear that Alexandria has entered the new millennium facing one of
its greatest challenges, that of providing open spaces, recreation areas, and a quality way of life for a citizenry that proudly reflects the diversity of the nation itself. This Open Space Plan offers a blueprint for accomplishing that task.
The process that was established for developing the Open Space Plan combined the reality of assessing current conditions with the dreams and visions of what could be, and the definition of practical steps for getting there.
The process began with the establishment of an Open Space Steering Committee, comprised of representatives from those City commissions and departments with interests in open space issues, including the Parks and Recreation Commission; the Environmental Policy Commission; the Planning Commission; Office of Historic Alexandria; the Department of Recreation, Park and Cultural Activities; the Department of Planning and Zoning; the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services; the Alexandria Schools; and the Office of the City Manager. This group worked closely with the consultant team throughout the process to establish a comprehensive definition of open space, review the existing conditions inventory, help plan community outreach activities, establish the open space framework and plan, and review implementation strategies.
The assessment of existing open space areas, as well as the definition of potential open space opportunities, were carried out in several ways. The process began with the analysis of the City's existing open space data regarding parks, other open space areas, environmentally sensitive areas, streets and roads, and public and private vacant land parcels. This data was obtained through aerial photos, the City's GIS mapping system and real estate data, and additional documentation from earlier studies and discussions. In addition, the consultant team carried out a systematic inventory of all of Alexandria's existing open space areas.
All of this baseline data was further enriched through a series of outreach efforts that included: interviews with various organizations and individuals with interest in open space issues in Alexandria; three Open Space Planning District meetings, and a citywide Open Space Summit. All of these outreach efforts are described in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this report. This multilevel process of community input provided both the vision and direction for the Open Space Plan.
The Open Space Plan report is organized as follows:
⬚ figure
Market Square (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections)
⬚ figure
Aerial view of old town Alexandria looking up King Street c. 1920 (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections)
⬚ figure
Plan of Alexandria (from “A Guide to Historic Alexandria” by William Seale, originally from the Library of Congress)
The only open space originally planned for community use in Alexandria was Market Square. However, a number of informal open spaces were in existence throughout Alexandria in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of these “commons” were used for grazing cows, horses, and other livestock. Other open spaces were strictly for human use, and were known as “pleasure gardens.” The most famous of these was Spring Garden, located on the northwest corner of Wilkes and Payne Streets. Alexandrians gathered here for entertainment and summer theater; George Washington himself attended a reception at Spring Garden in 1799 commemorating the 23rd anniversary of American independence.
Much of the open space in the original grid plan for Alexandria was intended for private use. With many of the houses and other structures sited directly on the street, without any setback, open space “dependencies” were located at the rear of these properties. This pattern of development has established the character of Old Town through the present day.
Other popular open spaces and pleasure gardens in the early days of Alexandria included Yeates’ Garden (on Franklin between Royal and Pitt Streets), Broomilaw Point (on South Washington Street near the present-day Hunting Towers Apartments), Old Ice House Hill (on the east side of the 700 block of Lee Street), and Battery Rodgers (located on Lee Street between Jefferson and Green Streets). Battery Rodgers was, in fact, a Civil War fort that overlooked the Potomac River. It was used as a gathering place for citizens to watch parades of Union soldiers that occupied Alexandria during the war.
One of the most picturesque, and well-known, open spaces in the city was Windmill Hill, which [like the present-day park of the same name] overlooked the Potomac River between Gibbon and Wilkes Streets. Windmill Hill became the scene of many political debates and rallies after the war. In the later days of the 19th century, it became a fashionable place for Alexandrians to promenade during the warm summer months (Alexandria Gazette, 7/21/1890). It remained a popular place for festivities into the 20th century. After Charles Lindbergh flew his famous solo flight to Paris in 1927, he returned to the U.S. and made an excursion to Washington aboard the U.S.S. Memphis. On Saturday, June 11th, when the Memphis passed by Alexandria, a presidential 21-gun salute boomed out from Windmill Hill to welcome the American hero. (Alexandria Gazette, 6/11/1927). (Windmill Hill was eventually deeded to the city as a park).
An effort was also made to establish a city-owned park at Shuter’s Hill in honor of George Washington. This site, at the western end of King Street overlooking Old Town (at the site of the present-day George Washington Masonic Memorial), was used often by the people of Alexandria as a gathering spot and vantagepoint. However, efforts to establish Alexandria’s first public park were unsuccessful, and the site was eventually purchased in 1921
⬚ figure
Alexandria, Virginia, 1853 (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from the Alexandria Library, Special Collections)
⬚ figure
Occupying Yankees outside the Athenaeum (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from the Library of Congress)
⬚ figure
Daily life c. 1890 (from "A Guide to Historic Alexandria" by William Seale, originally from William Francis Smith Collection)
by the George Washington Masonic Memorial Committee. The structure itself was completed in 1932.
While there were a number of open spaces available to the people of the city, many of these were located outside the immediate boundaries of Alexandria and, therefore, did not provide relief in the daily lives of the city's citizens. In an 1851 editorial that appeared in the Alexandria Gazette, a citizen wrote, "... We hope in the improvements that we trust are to take place in town the project of securing some square, as a park or promenade ground for the public, will not be overlooked. Our gardens and river banks are delightful, but they are not enough." (Alexandria Gazette, 6/14/1851).
A similar sentiment was expressed in an 1882 Alexandria Gazette article that had originally appeared in the pages of the Washington Star: "... it is on days that draw the whole population out to enjoy the fresh air that the want of open squares, parks, or anything of that kind is felt. The trees and herbage then draw hundreds to the graveyard, not to be buried, but to enjoy the open air and the green grass, and catch a glimpse of the shining creek that flows by. There are no breathing places for children in the town. Fortunately now the edges are easily reached but if the town should grow much this deficiency would become unbearable. Even the court house lot planted with trees would be better than nothing..." (Alexandria Gazette, 11/18/1882)
It was not until 1948, almost 200 years after the founding of Alexandria that the city recreation department planned to build its first official park. Although by this time there were 15 operating playgrounds in the city, there still were no parks. This new park, which was planned for seven acres running from St. Asaph Street to Fairfax Street and bounded by Montgomery and First Streets, was never constructed, the reasons for which remain elusive.
It was, therefore, not until the later half of the 20th century that Alexandria began to establish its system of public parks. While the city now boasts an impressive collection of 127 parks ranging in size from several acres to almost fifty acres, it is still, in many ways, struggling against the history of a city where land was too valuable a commodity to be used as open space. While the City has come a long way in creating a livable, green community for its residents, it must still buck the trends of history to provide enough open space for future generations of Alexandrians.
The vast majority of publicly owned open spaces and parks in the City of Alexandria are planned, maintained, and operated by the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities. The department is responsible for providing these facilities, along with programmed activities, for a broad range of city residents from infants to senior citizens, including those with special needs. The full range of departmental duties includes: maintenance of all
parks, ballfields, and publicly-owned flower beds in the City; tree care on public land; right-of-way maintenance; park planning and design; and the provision of organized activities such as games, sports, arts, crafts, hobbies, music, drama, and dancing.
The Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities currently maintains 127 parks totaling approximately 840 acres, with a staff of approximately 500 full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees. The department itself is broken down into three functional groups that represent its major program areas: 1) Administration; 2) Program Operations; and 3) Parks, Natural Resources, and Capital Projects.
Activities of the Administration division include strategic planning; development and execution of the department’s budget; financial management of the department’s revenue; general contract oversight and cooperation with outside contractors; coordination of personnel actions including hiring, recruitment, and payroll processing; and information technology planning and system maintenance.
The Program Operations division is responsible for the operation of all recreation centers, including Chinquapin Park Recreation Center and Dr. Oswald Durant Memorial Center, playgrounds, camps, athletic programs, therapeutic recreation programs, senior programs, special events, park rentals, cultural arts programs, and the Alexandria Commission for the Arts.
The Parks, Natural Resources, and Capital Projects division is in charge of many departmental functions. Perhaps the most visible of these functions are the repair and maintenance of all City parks, equipment, and facilities. The division is also responsible for designing park improvements; coordinating playground renovations; implementing the Bike Trails Master Plan (with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services); and designing, planting, and maintaining horticultural sites in street medians and public areas. There is also an arborist staff that oversees the planting and care of street trees. Lastly, a Capital Projects staff plans and coordinates the Department’s capital improvements and oversees the City’s marina.
All of the work that is done by the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Affairs is overseen by an eleven-member Alexandria Park and Recreation Commission. The Commission is an advisory committee that was created by the Alexandria City Council in March 1970 to study issues relating to park, recreation, and open space needs. Nine citizens are appointed to the Commission by City Council; they represent the three planning districts in the City. Two members are of high school age and are appointed to the Commission to represent the youth of Alexandria.
The Commission provides policy advice to City Council and offers City of Alexandria residents an opportunity to participate in planning activities. In addition to monitoring and making recommendations to improve the function
and diversity of existing and future recreation and park programs, the Commission works on issues pertaining to open space and advises City Council on all of these issues.
The first parks and recreation master plan for Alexandria was adopted in 1978 as one element of the City's master plan. The master plan was updated in 1992, and contained broad goals and objectives for parks and open space; it did not, however, address a specific open space plan. Thus, the current effort represents the City's first opportunity in 24 years to adopt a comprehensive park and open space plan.
The park and open space goals adopted in the 1992 master plan included:
In addition, the 1992 master plan called for the development of a "park system plan" that would define the types of open spaces to be provided throughout Alexandria, including "a park stream valley system to provide continuous linkage and access to recreational facilities."
The current plan acknowledges the framework established by these earlier efforts while, at the same time, recognizing the changing context resulting from the past decade. The overall goal, however, remains the same: to provide Alexandrians with exceptional open spaces and recreation opportunities, while protecting and restoring the natural environment, historic fabric, and sense of community that make Alexandria a special place to live, work and visit.
Citizens and policy makers mistakenly assume that the term "open space" clearly communicates an image that is shared by everyone. However, this is likely not the case. Many people, and many jurisdictions, impart a wide range of meanings to this phrase. For some, the term implies any area that does not contain a building or other structure; for others it means a "park" and nothing else; and so on. At the outset of the process of developing an open space plan for the City of Alexandria, the first task was to establish a working definition of "open space" that could help establish a direction for plan development.
In the process of defining those “open spaces,” to be included in the plan, the Steering Committee and consultant team concluded that the City has a complex system of significant “open space” areas that include parks, plazas, stream valleys, trails, easements, riverfront areas, streetscapes and so on. The group further decided that all of these areas made significant contributions to the overall character and livability of the City, and that a logical categorization of open spaces would be helpful in developing a plan. The resulting Open Space Classification System is based on factors of purpose or use, overall characteristics, area served, ownership status, and maintenance responsibility.
The subcategories that help to differentiate the variety of open spaces in the City are as follows:
⬚ figure
Trails at Oronoco Bay Park
⬚ figure
Streetscape on King Street and Saint Asaph
interpretive areas.
⬚ figure
Potomac river shoreline
3. Service Area
4. Ownership:
⬚ figure
Mount Vernon Recreation Center
of Virginia or the Federal Government (e.g., National Park Service). Public use and access are assured through public ownership.
5. Maintenance:
Includes the entity or individual with the primary responsibility for the upkeep, maintenance and protection of open space areas:
Open spaces in the City can be classified according to the above categories. For example, Cameron Run Regional Park would be classified in the following way: primarily active, recreational in character, serving a regional area, publicly owned, and maintained by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. On the other hand, Angel Park, located between Janney's Lane and Duke Street, adjacent to Taylor Run, would be classified as primarily passive, possessing both recreational and natural resource area characteristics, serving a neighborhood area, publicly owned and maintained by the City of Alexandria. By using this classification system to categorize the open space areas in the City, one can begin to comprehend the extent of those that are used for active versus passive use, the acreage that is used for primarily recreational purposes, the extent and location of the City's environmentally sensitive areas, and so on. This type of classification system provides the City with a useful analytical tool for understanding and working with existing open space areas, and defining the kinds of new open space areas that may need to be added to its inventory. It also provides a "snapshot" of the open space areas that may be at risk for future development. A matrix, listing the most significant open space areas in the City of Alexandria, classified according to this system, is provided in the Appendix.
A summary table of open space areas, broken down by the "active" and "passive" use classification categories, is included below for each of the City's three Park Planning Districts (see Figure 2 for Park Planning District boundaries). A discussion of the issues related to distribution of open space throughout Alexandria can be found in Chapter 3 Open Space Needs and Issues.
Figure 1. Summary Table of Alexandria's Open Spaces by Active and Passive Use Classification Categories
| Category | District 1 | District 2 | District 3 | Citywide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Use | (acres) | (acres) | (acres) | (acres) |
| Active | 121 | 155 | 214 | 490 |
| Passive | 183 * | 76 | 183 | 442 |
| Totals | 304 | 231 | 397 | 932** |
*Includes 107 acres for primarily passive use at Daingerfield Island Park (National Park Service) **Note: This total acreage differs from that calculated by the city in 1998 (964 acres) since the City's data included a private parcel in its calculations. The 932 acres also includes several smaller public open spaces not included in the 1998 list.
All of Alexandria's existing open spaces were inventoried, based on the classification system described above. The results of this process are summarized in Figures 3 to 9, and are described briefly below.
It is evident from Figure 3. Primary Uses, that many of the city's open space
⬚ figure
Figure 2: Park Planning District boundaries
areas are small. In fact, for public open spaces, the average size of active open space areas is less than seven acres with many sites less than one acre. Alexandria's largest active parks include Four Mile Run Park (55.9 acres, including all active fields, trails and natural resource areas), Ben Brenman Park (50.37 acres, including active facilities and natural resource areas, Jones Point Park (52.3 acres, including active fields, trails, and natural areas; leased from the National Park Service), and Chinqua-pin Park (23 acres of active fields and courts). The City's larger passive open spaces are, in general, environmentally sensitive sites, natural resource areas, or cultural/historic sites. These larger areas include: Daingerfield Island Park (107 acres; owned and maintained by the National Park Service), Holmes Run and Dora Kelly Nature Park (46 acres), and Fort Ward Park (41.4 acres).
In addition, Figure 3 also illustrates that the pattern of open space in Alexandria is scattered throughout the City, with few linkages between open space areas. This disconnected quality of the open space in Alexandria, combined with the small overall size of many sites, provides an impression of a City that is not very "green," and does not have a significant amount of usable open space to offer its residents and visitors. While this is would be an incorrect conclusion, the City could do more to maximize the utility and appreciation of its open space areas.
⬚ figure
Figure 3: Primary Use
The classification system lists eight possible secondary characteristics for Alexandria's open space areas: sites of cultural and/or historic interest, dog parks and exercise areas, sites that provide educational opportunities, environmentally sensitive areas, natural resource areas, sites dedicated primarily to recreational pursuits, sites along rivers and streams, and urban plazas and/or streetscapes. An open space may represent one or more of these characteristics; in fact, some spaces can be classified as having five or more. An example of this would be Windmill Hill Park, which can be considered cultural/historic, riverfront, urban plaza, environmentally sensitive, and recreational.
⬚ figure
King Street historical streetscape in Old Town, Alexandria
Cultural/Historic Sites: It is not surprising in a City that prides itself on its cultural and historic heritage that Alexandria should contain many open space sites that reflect that legacy. Several of these sites are, in fact, among the City's largest open space areas: for example, Fort Ward Park, Chinquapin Park, Daingerfield Island Park, Jones Point Park, and Dora Kelly Park. For each of these cultural and historic sites, it is important for the City to provide interpretive opportunities so that residents can understand, value, and protect these areas.
Dog Exercise Areas and Dog Parks: Alexandria provides two types of
⬚ figure
Note: Cemeteries are shown of Figure 24.
⬚ figure
Fort Ward amphitheater
⬚ figure
Fenced dog park
dog-related open space areas – dog exercise areas and fenced dog parks. While these are scattered throughout the City, the eastern half of Alexandria contains the greatest number of such facilities – particularly in Old Town.
Educational Sites: This category includes school sites – reflecting on the importance of open space in the learning process – and open spaces with interpretive opportunities. The City’s largest open space areas connected to schools include: T.C. Williams High School (16 acres), Polk School (12 acres with its adjacent park), and Ramsey School and Recreation Center (18 acres). However, the average school open space is 4.5 acres; if you eliminate T.C. Williams High School from the calculation, the average school open space is only 3.7 acres. Most of the non-school related open space sites that currently provide some level of interpretation/education are those within either historic or environmental contexts. Many of the City’s open space areas within these categories, however, do not currently offer interpretive/learning opportunities.
Environmentally Sensitive Sites: These are areas that are protected through environmental regulations and include wetlands, riparian areas, streams, rivers, 100-year floodplains, RPA’s, significant vegetation, slopes greater than 25 percent, critical habitat and areas of
⬚ figure
Figure 5: Dog Exercise Areas and Dog Parks
⬚ figure
Holmes Run
⬚ figure
Cameron Run
endangered species. Some of the larger sites included under this category include the Potomac River shoreline, Four Mile Run, Holmes Run, Cameron Run, and the Dora Kelly/Ramsey School sites. There are excellent interpretive opportunities at these sites to make people aware of their sensitive status and possible actions for continued stewardship.
Natural Resource Areas: These include areas that, while not under regulatory controls, are still important environmental resources for the City. They include woodlands, streams, wetlands, and greenways. The City contains many important natural resource areas, with some of the largest including Chinquapin Park, Fort Ward Park, Daingerfield Island Park and Jones Point Park. It is a goal of this Plan to encourage the City to strive to continue adding sites to its natural resource areas inventory as they are identified.
Recreational Sites: Recreational open space is often thought of simply as athletic fields; however, it includes a much broader range of opportunities. In addition to fields, recreational open space includes: courts, playgrounds, facilities for water sports, and so on. Figure 9 illustrates the wealth of recreational space contained in the City. However, it also indicates that many of these sites are small, and that some areas of Alexandria (e.g., the far west end and the northeastern sector) do not
⬚ figure
Figure 6: Educational Sites
⬚ figure
Playground
⬚ figure
Potomac River waterfront
contain as many recreational spaces as other parts of the City.
Rivers and Streams: Areas included in this category comprise some of the City’s most significant open spaces. One of Alexandria’s major attractions, both for residents and visitors, is its beautiful Potomac River waterfront. Bounding this shoreline, both to the north and south, are several other significant waterbodies – Four Mile Run, Cameron Run and Holmes Run. Other stream valleys include: Taylor Run, Timber Branch, Backlick Run, Strawberry Run, Hooffs Run, Lucky Run, Great Hunting Creek, and Old Cameron Run.
Urban Plazas and Streetscapes: In Alexandria, the eleventh densest city in the nation, urban plazas and park- like streets and boulevards represent important open space opportunities. These elements provide excellent venues for community activity, offer a sense of open space relief, provide attractive spaces and corridors, and encourage pedestrian use. Alexandria has not yet maximized its open space opportunities in this category (see Figure 11). The City contains only a few significant urban plazas, such as Market Square and King Street Station. In addition, it has a limited number of streets that could be described as “park-like boulevards.” Examples of the best of these include Commonwealth Avenue, Fort Williams Parkway, Seminary Road, Beauregard Street, Quaker Lane, and Jordan Street.
⬚ figure
Figure 7: Environmentally Sensitive Sites
⬚ figure
Market Square
⬚ figure
Streetscape in King Street
The service area category describes the general range of users for each open space area. Some open spaces attract users from throughout the region (and often beyond), some primarily attract users from the City as a whole, and some attract mostly neighborhood or smaller block area users. Based on the open space inventory, it is interesting to note that each planning district has its own character with regard to the populations served by its open space areas. For example, Planning District 1 contains perhaps the greatest number of regionally- served open spaces (63 percent of all of the open space in this district); for Planning Districts 2 and 3, only 24 percent and 19 percent of their open space areas respectively are considered regional in scope. For those open spaces serving a citywide population, almost one third of the areas in District 1 fall into this category, as well as 32 percent in Districts 2, and 34 percent in District 3. On the other hand, almost half of the open spaces in Districts 2 and 3 (44 percent and 47 percent respectively) can be categorized as serving primarily neighborhood or block service areas, while only 5 percent of the open spaces in District 1 can be described in this way. On a citywide basis, it appears that Alexandria offers a good mix of different types of open spaces areas intended to serve a variety of populations and purposes, although the focus of who is served varies significantly between areas.
⬚ figure
Ownership and Maintenance
Most of the open space areas included for consideration in this planning study are publicly owned and maintained. Of the 22 significant privately-owned open spaces identified, only eight have been classified as "private with no public access." The remaining 222 acres, although privately owned, are typically made accessible to the general public, if even for limited use. There is no guarantee in place, however, for this practice to continue.
Of the approximately 932 acres of public open space in Alexandria, more than three quarters of that land is owned and maintained by the City. The remaining quarter comprises land owned and/or maintained by the National Park Service, the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The 116 public open space areas included in the Open Space Classification matrix were inventoried as part of the planning process. The inventory provided a more in-depth "picture" of the status and characteristics of each open space area. The inventory included the following specific elements:
⬚ figure
Figure 9: Recreational Sites
site characteristics, and uses
An inventory form was completed for each site, as well as a locational map and site photographs. The completed inventory is contained in a separate volume, City of Alexandria Open Space Inventory, 2001, available through the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities.
Among other factors, the inventory assessed current site conditions and suitability of the site to meet its programmatic intent. Nearly three quarters of the sites inventoried were evaluated as either "excellent" or "good" at meeting their intended programmed uses. The remaining quarter were assessed either as demonstrating a mismatch between site program and surrounding context
⬚ figure
Figure 10: Rivers and Streams
(e.g., a play area for children that requires access from a heavily trafficked street, with no adequate crosswalk to the facility), or a disconnect between existing facilities and intended programmed uses (e.g., a passive park that provided a setting in which to sit and linger but did not provide an adequate number of benches).
In terms of overall condition, four general issues emerged as important to consider in improving the status of existing open space – particularly public parks – in the City. These include:
Locational Issues: many of Alexandria's smaller parks, particularly those in the City's more dense areas, are located close to busy streets. This presents both noise and potential safety issues. New parks, where possible, should be set back or buffered from busy streets. The challenge for existing parks is to buffer them from these adjacent streets while still allowing for visibility into the sites for security. In addition, locations adjacent to busy streets, without adequate crosswalks near the park, often present access problems, particularly for children. Broader locational issues related to the distribution of parks throughout the City are discussed in Chapter 3. Open Space Needs and Issues.
Design Issues: a number of the City's older parks present problems related to their current designs. For example, one of the traditional
⬚ figure
Figure 11: Urban Plazas and Streetscapes
concerns about urban parks is the degree of visibility they afford from surrounding areas in order to minimize crime, vandalism, and the occurrence of illegal activities. In a number of the parks inventoried, visibility problems were noted, related to several factors: location (e.g., in interior areas that do not permit adequate views into the park), elevation level (e.g., parks that are sunken or elevated), areas that are surrounded by dense vegetation without compensating security measures (such as increased lighting), and inadequate lighting in general.
The inventory also identified instances where additional amenities would strengthen a park's program, such as improved seating (particularly in shaded locations), fencing, interpretive signage, and facilities that allow for greater accessibility by handicapped persons. Site design issues that were also apparent included: maximizing linkage opportunities for connecting parks to nearby trails and to other community open space areas; clearly defining park entrance locations; and configuring the site so that its programmatic uses are apparent to all and so one use area does not conflict with another.
Environmental Issues: Several environmental issues were noted during the public open space inventory, including erosion problems along stream banks and on steep slopes, as well as potential water quality and drainage issues. In addition, many of the City's public open spaces contain wonderful natural resources. The general public should be made more aware of these elements through interpretive/educational and preservation programs.
Maintenance Issues: While many of the City's parks are in outstanding condition, maintenance issues were noted in a number of instances. These included: old and worn play equipment, overused turf areas (particularly on athletic fields), overgrown trails and streambanks, cracked pavement areas and, in more natural areas, the need to remove invasive plants.
Overall, the City's parks are in good condition, but an open space plan must begin by maximizing existing resources. Hence, the inventory of public open spaces provides Alexandria with input regarding those aspects of its current open space that could be improved.
In October of 1998 in a presentation to Agenda Alexandria, Ken Billingsley, Director of Information and Development at the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, traced the fascinating demographic profile of the City. In his remarks, he stated that:
Like the Potomac River at Great Falls, outwardly calm on the surface, there are powerful undercurrents flowing which are about to turn this city inside/out.
Those "currents" included many factors that impact both the need for open space, and types of open space needed, in Alexandria. Mr. Billingsley predicted that the upcoming 2000 census would indicate the following:
⬚ figure
Major retail and office development along King and Washington Streets attract diverse population groups
Ken Billingsley also predicted that the population in the nation's 11th densest city would have grown by approximately 1,000 people per year between 1990 and 2000. In reality, Alexandria's population in the year 2000 far exceeded Mr. Billingsley's prediction, with the census showing a total population of 128,283, a growth of 17,000 persons in ten years.
Mr. Billingsley's other predictions have, in large measure, proven to be right on target. While the City's population under the age of 18 years old grew by almost 26 percent, it represents approximately 17 percent of the City's total population. One third of the population, however, is between the ages of 20 and 34, while another third is between 35 and 54 years old. The latter group represents a 27 percent increase in the last decade. The median age in the City of Alexandria was 33.5 in 1990; in the year 2000, it is 34.4.
Household composition has also changed significantly. Non-family households comprise 55 percent of all households in the City (a 17 percent growth over 1990). Moreover, there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of householders living alone, so that this population now represents over 43 percent of all households in Alexandria. The City, in fact ranks third in the nation for number of single-person households. Finally, while family households comprise nearly 45 percent of the City's household population (a 15 percent growth rate), the percent of families with children under the age of 18 remained constant at 18.6 percent. Overall, however, households with children under the age of 18 increased
by 25 percent in the ten year period. Average household size in Alexandria is 2.04 persons, and average family size is 2.87 persons.
While the balance between owners and renters has remained about the same, with City residents renting (60 percent) more often than owning (40 percent), there has been growth in both sectors. Therefore, over the past decade, there has been a 17 percent increase in the number of residents renting their housing units, and a 14.7 percent increase in the number owning their units.
The City has also continued to experience major changes in population composition with regard to racial and ethnic diversity. According to the 2000 Census:
Many of the City's new residents, reflected in the statistics described above, are part of an influx of newly arrived immigrants who are making Alexandria their American home. This influx has, in fact, resulted in Alexandria being one of the most racially and ethnically diverse locality in Northern Virginia.
The area of the City that has experienced the greatest growth as a result of both the population influx and new development has been the west side, generally included within the City's Planning Area 3. Other areas that have undergone significant population growth in the last decade include the area north of Glebe Road comprising Census Tract 12.3 and within Planning Area 2, and the Eisenhower Valley area spanning Planning Areas 2 and 3.
Finally, the City overall has one of the highest per capita income rates in the region. With Alexandria's per capita income at $46,290 as of the 2000 Census, the only jurisdiction with a higher per capita rate is Arlington County ($46,677). For the City, this represents a 46 percent growth in the decade since 1990. In addition, Alexandria ranks among the top cities in the nation with regard to the percent of population with college degrees and advanced degrees.
What does all of this mean with regard to open space? The changing demographic profile of the City reflects changing expectations and demands for various types of open space opportunities. If one considers, for example, that Alexandria is largely a fairly young "adult city" – that is, a city in which two thirds of the population is between the ages of 20 and 54 – with a large proportion of single residents, it is likely that there will be significant demand for open spaces that can accommodate a full range of adult activities. These will range from active sports, including team sports as well as biking and jogging, to more passive endeavors such as hiking and strolling, picnicking, and sunning.
At the same time, the City’s growing population of children under the age of 18 will demand a significant amount of active open space. This is compounded by the fact that many of the rental options in Alexandria, as elsewhere, do not contain usable open space areas. Hence, those families with children living in rental units must rely completely on the City for their open space opportunities. Similarly, the City’s increasing population over the age of 55 will also be seeking a broad range of open space opportunities, both passive and active in nature.
Alexandria’s ethnic diversity will also reflect a diversity in expectations and demands regarding the kinds of open spaces needed. This might range from a greater emphasis on specific types of active recreational pursuits – such as soccer – and an increasing need for fields that can accommodate these activities, to open spaces as settings for strolling and gathering, as is more common in some cultures than it may be in the United States.
Finally, as assessment of the distribution of open space in the City is critical in order to determine the extent to which this matches and responds to the needs of the current and projected population. The Needs Assessment Study that is currently underway will provide the City with information that will allow for a more precise response regarding the distribution and types of recreational facilities – including open space facilities – required. The current Open Space Plan looks at more general open space needs and opportunities, providing the framework for both active and passive uses.
⬚ figure
View of King Street metro station and surrounding urban fabric
In 1990, Alexandria was ranked as the 11th densest city in the United States. Over the last decade, our density has increased from 11.0 persons per acre in 1990 to 12.7 persons per acre in 2000, a 15 percent increase. For comparative purposes, based on 1990 Census figures, Alexandria’s per acre density ranked with other major U.S. cities as follows:
On a regional level, the City of Alexandria at 8,145 persons per square mile is more dense than either of its immediate neighbors: with Arlington County at 7,315 persons per square mile and Fairfax County at a mere 2,385 persons.1
It is not surprising, given this density, that open space is a valuable and limited asset in the City of Alexandria. Viewed in another way, the City offers 7.3 acres2 of active and passive public open space for every 1,000 persons living within its boundaries. This is the same as in 1990. Yet, how does this compare with other cities? In his book, Inside City Parks, Peter Harnik provides a comparison between open space provisions in select high and medium density American cities. (Note that this comparison is based on 1990 Census figures and has not yet been updated ). Some of these comparisons are noted below:
| Persons per Acre | Parks & Open Space per 1,000 Residents | Park Acreage as Percent of City Acreage | Total Population | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexandria | 11.0 | 7.3 | 10.7% | 111,183 |
| High Density Cities: | ||||
| Baltimore | 13.1 | 7.5 | 9.8 | 675,000 |
| Boston | 18.0 | 8.7 | 15.7 | 558,000 |
| Chicago | 18.7 | 4.3 | 8.0 | 2,722,000 |
| Los Angeles | 11.8 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 3,554,000 |
| Miami | 16.0 | 3.6 | 5.8 | 365,000 |
| New York | 37.3. | 7.2 | 26.8 | 7,381,000 |
| Philadelphia | 17.1 | 7.2 | 12.4 | 1,478,000 |
| San Francisco | 24.6 | 10.3 | 25.4 | 735,000 |
| Average, High | 7.2 | 14.2 | ||
| Medium: | ||||
| Cincinnati | 7.0 | 21.4 | 15.0 | 346,000 |
| Cleveland | 10.1 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 498,000 |
| Detroit | 11.3 | 5.9 | 6.6 | 1,000,000 |
| Minneapolis | 10.2 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 359,000 |
| Pittsburgh | 9.8 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 350,000 |
| Portland, OR. | 6.0 | 26.2 | 15.8 | 481,000 |
| Seattle | 9.8 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 525,000 |
| St. Louis | 8.9 | 9.6 | 8.5 | 352,000 |
| Average, Medium | 13.0 | 10.9 |
Once again, Alexandria is " betwixt and between" other American cities — in terms of total population, it is considerably smaller than any of the cities listed while, on the other hand, it is comparable in density to cities such as Los Angeles, Detroit, Minneapolis and Cleveland. In terms of the provision of open space per 1,000 residents, however, Alexandria is generally on par with the "high density cities," while being significantly below the average open space per 1,000 residents provided for "medium density cities." In terms of quality of life indicators, the cities that are generally lauded as "livable" and providing a high quality of life often include: San Francisco, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Portland (OR), and Seattle. All of these cities provide substantially more open space per resident than does the City of Alexandria, and all have a significantly greater percent of overall city acreage devoted to parks than does Alexandria.
In order for Alexandria to address its future open space needs, it must first assess and confront current issues regarding the City’s existing open space resources. As discussed below, these include:
The lack of open space continuity and connection
The diminishing availability of open space
The uneven distribution of open space
The need for open space stewardship and protection, particularly with regard to natural areas
Open Space Continuity and Connection
Over the past decade, recreation specialists and urban policy decision-makers have begun to recognize the critical importance of providing connected open spaces within dense urban settings. Not only does the provision of continuous open space opportunities provide more usable and useful open space, but it also strengthens residents' perception of a "green city," a city that offers both a human scale and a desirable quality of life.
The current pattern of open space areas within the City of Alexandria is scattered and disconnected (see Figure 3). While these open spaces provide residents with a variety of recreational and visual opportunities, the current dispersed pattern does not maximize the use of these spaces; nor does it enhance the image of Alexandria as a "green city." Given the high density of the City, it is particularly important that existing open space opportunities be maximized to the greatest extent possible by means of a connected, continuous open space system.
Many communities across the country have been enhancing their open spaces through the creation of greenways, connected green linkages that wind through a city, tie it together, and allow residents access to, and
movement between, a variety of open space experiences. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), in its publication Conserving Virginia’s Natural and Recreation Resources, recognizes that each city’s greenway will be unique. In general, however, DCR defines "greenways" as:. ...open space corridors that [typically]... connect recreational, natural, cultural, and/or historic areas.
Some of the benefits to be accrued from the creation of greenways, as documented by DCR, include:
All of these benefits would likely apply to the development of a strong, clearly defined and linked open space network within the City of Alexandria. The physical connections created as a result of this system would bring together people and open space areas throughout the City. The development of this open space system become, therefore, one of the more critically important strategies in the City's Open Space Plan.
There is an apparent inverse relationship between development and open space since an increase in one results in a decrease in the other. For most urban areas within Northern Virginia, rapid development has dramatically decreased the availability of open space for recreational and other purposes. The paradox is that, as more people move into an area and demand high quality open space amenities, the greater the constraints are to find adequate space to accommodate their needs. This is certainly true in the City of Alexandria where an already dense municipality has accommodated a 15.4 percent increase in population over the decade between 1990 and 2000; and where approximately 4,176 new housing units and approximately 50 to 60 development plans were approved in the two year period from FY ‘98 to FY ‘00.
Moreover, the pressure for identifying new sites for public use is divided between those who are seeking opportunities for additional open space and those who must address the need for new and expanded school sites and other public facilities, as well as affordable housing opportunities. At present, these groups often compete with one another to identify and claim right to each new land parcel as it becomes available.
These trends indicate the need for several actions with regard to open space in Alexandria:
In the on-going competition between development and open space, many jurisdictions have had to address the belief that the economic benefits to be accrued from development outweigh those attributable to open space. It is relatively easy to quickly dismiss open space as "nice to have" but not as important to a city's economic health as new development. Research and empirical evidence indicate, however, that this is not true. All things considered, development is not always the highest and best use for a piece of property.
There are important qualitative, as well as documented quantitative, benefits that flow from a community's open space resources. These benefits include:
On the qualitative side, open space does provide important social and quality of life assets for communities. In studies conducted throughout the
United States, open space has been increasingly recognized as a critical element determining residents’ assessments about the quality of life in their communities. For example, in a 1995 poll conducted by the Regional Plan Association and the Quinnipac College Polling Institute, the two major factors named as most important for determining a satisfactory quality of life were low crime and access to open space. Such findings have been repeatedly confirmed in additional studies by other groups.1 Moreover, open space resources are typically touted in the economic development, business recruitment, and tourism promotion efforts of many communities. The lack of such resources can place a community at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other communities, in this era of increasingly active population sectors and growing public support for open space preservation.
In studies focused on determining the critical factors considered in business relocations, open space and recreational opportunities have been found to rank significantly in defining a “good quality of life” for a locality. For example, in a survey conducted in 1997 by Fortune magazine regarding the best cities for business, they asked participants, “If you had virtually identical career opportunities in multiple cities, what would be the most important quality of life factors that would determine your choices.” Education ranked first on the list, followed by recreation, culture, crime and safety.
On the quantitative side, reasons to promote open space typically fall under two general categories. The first is the value impact on adjacent properties. The second is the relative “costs” of open space versus development options that might prove to be a fiscal drain on public coffers.
Many studies have been undertaken to document the impact of open space on properties that are near, adjacent to, or fronting on such areas (i.e., “proximate properties”).2 Based on a significant body of research, it has been found that open space areas tend to enhance the value of such proximate properties. The general rule of thumb is that attractive open space can enhance the value (and hence property tax yield) of adjacent or fronting properties by approximately 20 percent. As distance from the open space resource increases, the value premium declines, but the area of impact is thought to be possibly as great as 500 feet for a smaller park, and up to 2,000 feet from a community park.
As with most rules of thumb, there are important limitations and conditions that should be noted: the open space resource must be well kept up and attractive; and, generally, larger open space areas and open spaces devoted to passive uses tend to carry greater value premiums. Proximity to active, rather than passive, recreation areas may actually have negative impact on values for properties that are immediately adjacent due to potential issues such as traffic, congestion, and noise. However, proximity to active open space and park resources can have a positive impact on
values of properties in close proximity to, but not immediately adjacent to, such resources.
The second benefit of open space preservation is based on the premise that retention of a piece of property as open space can preempt development that could require the sometimes-costly provision of public services. This situation is particularly relevant when the alternative use is residential development that would require the full spectrum of public services including schools, public safety, etc. These services typically exceed the value of property tax receipts associated with such development. Combined with the value impact on proximate properties, the net fiscal impact can often enhance the overall positive impact of open space retention for a community. Thus, John Crompton, one of the individuals who has researched the economic impacts of open space versus residential development has concluded that:
The evidence clearly indicated that creating parks and preserving open space can be a less expensive alternative to development. A strategy of conserving parks and open space is not contrary to a community's economic health, but rather is an integral part of it (p.75).
Finally, the economic value of open space has recently been underscored through a series of public referenda supporting funding for parks and open space issues. In the year 2000, for example, the Trust for Public Land reported that 40 communities throughout the nation passed measures that generated $3.3 billion to protect parks and open spaces. Similarly, the Land Trust Alliance, also in 2000, stated that a total for 141 out of 165 referenda concerning open space and land conservation issues were passed, providing over $6.9 billion in new funds for these issues. As stated by Ernest Cook, director of the Public Finance Program for the Trust for Public Land:
Voters across the country have demonstrated real commitment to preserving open space in their communities. We are seeing strong support for measures that provide financing for parks and open space even in places where tax measures for other purposes have failed.1
Hand in hand with Alexandria's changing demographic picture is its shift in overall population distribution. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the population of Alexandria has been changing both in terms of overall characteristics and where people choose to live. If the City wishes to make its open space resources available to all residents on an equitable basis, it will be important to analyze the current population patterns with regard to existing open space availability.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, population growth has occurred in
all three of the City's planning districts. However, the growth has been greatest in District 3, the west side of the City (i.e., there was a 21 percent increase in population in District 3 between 1990 and 2000; over the same time period in Districts 1 and 2, growth was 17 percent and 4.6 percent respectively). Viewed in terms of open space acres per thousand residents, District 1 has approximately 12.24 acres per 1,000 persons; District 2 has approximately 6.7 acres; and District 3 offers approximately 6.9 acres. However, many of the open space acres, particularly in District 3, comprise environmentally sensitive sites (such as Holmes Run) that are not suited or intended for active recreational pursuits.
In terms of open space available for active recreation, District 1 contains approximately 4.8 acres per 1,000 residents; District 2 comprises 4.5 acres; and District 3 offers 3.0 acres. Given the fact that the greatest growth in children aged 17 and under occurred in District 3 (44 percent, as compared to 14 percent in District 1 and 8 percent in District 2), it is not surprising that the need for additional recreational open space in District 3 has been identified by the City as an issue requiring attention. In response to this issue, the City has undertaken a Recreation Needs Assessment study that will analyze recreational needs in terms of population characteristics and distribution.
As Alexandria continues to grow, and to attract new residents and businesses, the overall need to protect the City's few remaining open space areas becomes even more critical. One need only look at a map of existing vacant lands (see Figure 13) to underscore how little open land remains within Alexandria's boundaries. Therefore, building an open space system that will adequately provide for a growing population requires that we protect and enhance the open spaces we currently have, and maximize opportunities for creating new open spaces when these become available.
Perhaps the largest potential for open space resources in Alexandria lies in its natural, environmentally sensitive, and cultural/historic areas. These include the City's riverfront, stream valleys, steep slopes, wooded sites, historic landscapes, and other natural resource areas. Care for, and protection of, such areas will be critical to any open space plan for the City since these areas comprise a major portion of Alexandria's green infrastructure. Moreover, they represent a key opportunity for making those open space connections that are essential to the establishment of a working open space network throughout the City. Those opportunities include:
A separate Recreation Needs Assessment Study has recently been completed by the firm of Leon Younger and PROS. This study has analyzed the City’s current and projected recreational needs, in terms of programs as well as indoor and outdoor facilities, and has recommended specific improvements to the City’s recreational system. The reader is referred to this document for further details.
However, in general, the population projections for the next 10 years require the addition of at least 100 acres of additional open space just to maintain the existing ratio of open space per capita. In 1990, Alexandria had 7.3 acres of active and passive open space for each 1,000 residents, based on a population of 111,000. Between 1990 and 2000, the City added 125 acres of open space and 17,000 residents. In 2000, Alexandria remained at 7.3 acres per 1,000 residents, despite adding the 125 acres. In 2012, the projected population of 142,000 will require the City to add 100 acres of open space to maintain 7.3 acres for each 1,000 residents.1
The Strategic Plan's ratio of 7.5 acres per thousand people was based on 840 acres of public land that the City currently maintains. The above numbers go beyond City maintained acres and include other areas such as Daingerfield Island. ↩
Open space is a community amenity, and many residents of Alexandria feel passionate about the City's open space areas. They fight to protect the open spaces currently in place and are eager to point out opportunities for improving them. In addition, many residents are often the first to know about new open space opportunities, or potential opportunities that may become available in the future. Moreover, the open space planning process presented the City with an excellent occasion to bring residents together to have a role in planning those areas that contribute significantly to the quality of life in Alexandria.
⬚ figure
Park Planning District 1 meeting
The community involvement process was designed to accomplish three general goals:
A multi-tiered involvement process was used to engage a broad range of key stakeholders, community groups, and residents in the planning process. This process included:
⬚ figure
Park Planning Distrct 1 meeting
This community involvement strategy allowed the planning team to reach a large and diverse number of residents, and enabled those who participated to have more than one opportunity to express their views on the issues discussed. The ideas to emerge from all of this input have served as the basis for the Open Space Plan.
⬚ figure
Park Planning District 2 meeting
Each of the Planning District meetings began with a presentation of the open space categories defined as part of the planning process, and findings of the inventory of existing conditions for each category. The meeting was then turned over to the community participants present, in the form of small group discussions. The purpose of these discussions was to allow opportunities for residents to think about their open space needs, and to develop ideas that would contribute to an open space vision for their communities.
While those attending each Planning District session focused specifically on the open space needs within their own district, many also addressed broader citywide needs. What was most remarkable about the input received from these meetings was the similarity of goals expressed by participants from all three districts.
The major discussion points noted by participants, comprising the beginning of an open space vision for the City, indicated need for the following (not in any order of priority):
⬚ figure
highways, and trails.
Based on the input provided as a result of the three Planning District meetings, a conceptual Open Space Vision was compiled (see Figure 14). This vision served as the discussion starting point for the Open Space Summit.
Approximately 150 people gathered together on a Saturday in June 2001 to discuss the future of open space in the City of Alexandria. The agenda for this event is provided in the Appendix. In brief, after greetings from Mayor Donley, and remarks from the chairs of the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Environmental Policy Commission that placed the open space planning effort in the context of other ongoing efforts in the City, the group listened to a presentation by Peter Harnik (author of Inside City Parks) regarding the importance of open space for dense urban cities, such as Alexandria. The consultant team presented the results of the planning process up to that point, and described the conceptual Open Space Vision that was developed following the Planning District meetings. Each of the 15 tables in the room was provided with a copy of the Open Space Vision diagram and participants were asked to in small group sessions, led by facilitators, to address the following questions:
⬚ figure
Group presentation at the Summit
these on the plan on the three opportunities you believe the City should focus on first.
All groups were given an hour to complete the questions. At the end of that time, a representative from each of the groups was asked to come forward and present its responses. In general, respondents resoundingly supported the overall concepts shown in the Open Space Vision diagram. They did, however, feel that the Open Space Plan should emphasize the following actions:
⬚ figure
Group work was mediated by a landscape architect
⬚ figure
Community participants at the Summit
The groups designated three recommendations as the top priorities for immediate action: protection of the City’s stream valleys, creation of a continuous
public open space corridor along the Potomac River waterfront, and the creation of connected public open space opportunities in the Eisenhower Corridor.
The information gained from the Summit was used to develop the goals and strategies for the Open Space Plan. These are described in the next chapter of this report.
Unlike many important cities, in the late 19th and early 20th Century, Alexandria did not set aside large swaths of open space or adopt a comprehensive open space plan that would guide the creation of a park system with interconnected linear and stream valley parks, waterfront parks and other open spaces, large and small. Alexandria’s current park system includes a broad range of open space facilities, ranging from neighborhood parks and playgrounds to national parks. Some parks are linear in character, such as those that follow water courses. Others are located along the Potomac River and provide dramatic vistas up river to the U.S. Capitol and down river toward broad views of the Potomac River shoreline. This section of the report describes the current opportunities available to the City to conserve open space; a conceptual planning framework for the plan; and a description of 15 goals and associated plan recommendations.
Numerous open spaces throughout the City have potential to remain as open space through various methods of protection. These open spaces are currently not designated as parks or public open spaces. Some are privately owned, but designated as open space open to the public; for example, the Winkler Botanical Garden in the West End. Others are open spaces on properties owned by institutions such as the Virginia Theological Seminary property at Seminary Road and Quaker Lane.
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Alexandria National Cemetery
⬚ figure
Fort Ward
The open space opportunities have been organized into the following categories and are illustrated in the Open Space Opportunities Sites map.
Alexandria has numerous opportunities to create a significant network of interconnected and linked open spaces throughout the City in order to create a meaningful and workable green infrastructure. Since the City lacks large undeveloped tracts of vacant or underdeveloped land to target for open space protection or enhancement, this plan has identified a framework for making the most of the small amount of available land for open space use. This framework includes the following:
⬚ figure
New development areas should support the open space linkages throughout the city
⬚ figure
The Green Crescent connects primary rivers and streams in Alexandria.
⬚ figure
Large institutional properties become the Central Open Space Conservation Area
A second segment of the Green Crescent creates a linear park generally parallel to the existing railroad rights-of-way of WMATA and CSX and extends from Four Mile Run at Route 1 to Ben Brenman Park in the West End. This Crescent builds upon the existing open spaces of Simpson Field, George Washington Middle School, and others with new open spaces and linkages in areas that are currently vacant or underutilized. Dramatic vistas of the U.S. Capitol and the George Washington Masonic Temple will become orientation elements for this Crescent.
A Central Open Space Conservation Area is established in the heart of the City through the preservation of land owned by Episcopal High School, the Episcopal Theological Seminary and the Second Presbyterian Church. These institutions have protected their woodlands, specimen trees, streams and rolling open fields over many decades. Through a variety of protection mechanisms, these open spaces can be protected in perpetuity and, possibly, certain areas made accessible to the general public for many years to come.
⬚ figure
Linear parks are a part of the Open Space Corridors
greenways that link to the Green Crescent and the Central Open Space Conservation Area. These corridors are aligned along the following streets or stream valleys:
⬚ figure
Figure 16: Open Space Concept Plan
⬚ figure
Beauregard Street
During the planning process for the preparation of this Open Space Plan, 15 goals were formulated. Through discussions at the three Planning District meetings, the Citywide Open Space Summit and Steering Committee meetings, the 15 goals and associated plan recommendations were defined, analyzed and finalized. The 15 goals and associated recommendations provide the overall framework for the plan. These goals include:
The next section of this chapter describes each goal, along with its associated plan recommendations and strategies for implementation.
Alexandria’s existing public parks are the armature of its open space system.
⬚ figure
Existing park
They provide both passive and active recreational amenities for neighborhoods and districts as well as for the City and the region. The existing parks are the focal points of communities and the locations for important civic events. As parks become more intensively used, the need for increased maintenance, management and planning becomes greater. In addition to identifying opportunities, the City should provide a strategy to continually protect the existing park system and identify opportunities to enhance park resources. An important component of this work will be in defining opportunities for park renovation, expansion and linkages to create a comprehensive open space network. Participants in the planning process were unanimous in their concern to protect remaining natural resources in existing parks.
The Plan defines opportunities for park renovation, expansion and linkages to create a park/open space network.
In addition, the Plan encourages the protection and enhancement of remaining natural resources in existing parks.
⬚ figure
Existing park by the Potomac River
Integrate the findings of the Open Space Inventory with those of the Needs Assessment Study.
Continue the recent emphasis on increased maintenance of the existing park system and other public open spaces.
Carefully assess existing heavily used parklands and recreation facilities in the Needs Assessment and determine methods for minimizing overuse (e.g., reprogramming or planned expansion).
Look to the Needs Assessment to identify program needs (e.g., active recreation, passive activities, educational activities, etc.) and define potential areas for accommodating these.
Inventory cultural and natural resources in the parks to protect existing resources and expand public education and enjoyment. Identify natural resource needs and define potential opportunities for accommodating these.
Work with Alexandria’s business and residential communities to create an open space conservancy and stewardship program that can: (1) accept financial and property donations, (2) support renovation and expansion of parks and other public open spaces, and (3) create new parks and preserve existing open spaces and natural areas.
Establish an open space endowment for the purchase and development
of public open space. (Possible funding sources for this action are discussed in Chapter 6.)
Continue to seek increased City funding and other sources of funding for park maintenance, renovation and expansion, as well as for staff training and professional management to improve use of existing resources.
Develop a master plan for each of the City's existing parks to guide short and long-term needs.
Expand the City's volunteer programs, such as Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a-Garden and Tree Stewards, to encourage organized groups to help with the maintenance of open space resources. (See Chapter 6 for additional discussion of this issue)
Develop a management/stewardship plan for cultural and natural resources in Alexandria's parks.
GOAL 2. DEVELOP INNOVATIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
The overarching concept for the Alexandria Open Space Plan includes: pro-
⬚ figure
Figure 17: Goal 1 - Protect and Enrich Existing Parks
⬚ figure
Innovative parking
tecting existing parks, other publicly-owned open spaces and natural areas; linking existing parks and open space areas; creating continuous open space systems along the Potomac River and the City's stream valleys; creating a continuous open space system in a former industrial area, “The Green Crescent;” and creating a series of new small parks in under-served, high density communities. While the creation of additional public open space areas presents a challenge to the City in terms of cost, development trade-offs, and so on, it will be critical for the City to pursue these options in order to accommodate the increasing need for open space for the City's growing population. The Plan recommendations highlighted below identify a number of innovative methods for creating public open spaces.
Seize opportunities quickly when land suitable for open space usage becomes available, including developed commercial or industrial land that could be converted to open space uses.
Plan strategically for future opportunities to create, expand, or improve parks and publicly-owned natural areas and open spaces.
Convert channelized stream valleys and other modified natural resource areas into verdant open spaces.
Create parkland as well as recreational facilities atop new below-ground parking structures.
Create new open spaces, and link existing open spaces, by bridging over roads (e.g., open space deck linking Fort Ward Park, NOVA campus, and the Episcopal High School).
Utilize air rights over roadways to create new open space, recreation, habitat, and educational facilities.
Expand sections of existing roadways to create traffic-free bike trails, pedestrian paths, and landscaped medians and sidewalks (e.g., King Street, Duke Street, Commonwealth Avenue and Telegraph Road).
Utilize the following selection criteria for identifying privately-owned land suitable for acquisition by the City for parkland/open space use:
green spaces, and playgrounds (Old Town; Rosemont; western sector of the City; Del Ray; etc.)
Create a City Hall “Action Team” comprised of representatives from the City Manager’s office; the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; Department of Planning and Zoning; Department of Transportation and Environmental Services; Office of Historic Alexandria; and others as needed to create a coordinated strategy for rapid action on land disposition.
Enhance existing requirements for open space in new development and
⬚ figure
Figure 18: Goal 2 - Develop Innovative Opportunities for Creating Additional Public Open
make amendments as needed to ensure that new projects will provide sufficient usable open space.
Develop specific plans for strategies for all stream valleys in the City, and target agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA as funding sources for this effort. Build upon the City's on-going environmental efforts regarding these areas.
Develop plans and strategies for natural areas in the City.
Strategically seek and develop additional funding sources that will allow the City to realize the recommended strategies for creating new open space opportunities (see Chapter 6).
⬚ figure
GOAL 3. REVIEW AND COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERFRONT PLAN
As identified in public meetings, the Potomac River with its beautiful shoreline is the premier open space for the City of Alexandria. People from across the City, as well as the region, are attracted to the parks along the Potomac River because they are generally linked, are expansive, have great views and, at certain times during the year, offer exciting programs and festivals. Throughout the planning process, participants emphasized the need to establish a strategy for acquiring the "missing links" of the waterfront open space system and seize open space opportunities along the entire waterfront.
The Plan urges the City to review and continue to implement the City's earlier Waterfront Plan from Jones Point Park to Four Mile Run, to link with the open spaces of the Mt. Vernon Trail along the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the District of Columbia.
Recommendations for Goal 3
High priority should be given to protecting and creating continuous public access to and along the Potomac River. The following parcels, if protected for open space use, will fill in the gaps along the Potomac River shoreline:
Provide natural and historical education/awareness of the Potomac River.
⬚ figure
Boats at the Potomac River
Link the Potomac River parks with other stream valley water resource areas (Four Mile Run, Cameron Run, etc.) through both land and water-based trails and open spaces.
At a minimum, continue to require implementation of the existing 25-foot wide easement or zone for open space linkages along the Potomac River waterfront as represented in zoning and settlement agreements, and create new parkland on parcels with title questions.
Strive to restore the 100-foot RPA buffer along the shoreline as opportunities to do so arise.
Require significant open space areas for all new development along the riverfront.
⬚ figure
Figure 19: Goal 3 - Complete Implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan
GOAL 4. PROTECT, EXPAND, AND CONNECT STREAM VALLEYS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
⬚ figure
Holmes Run stream valley
The City of Alexandria has begun to identify, protect, and connect its stream valleys as important natural resources and significant open space amenities. In the past, these natural resource areas were industrialized, degraded and avoided as places for public use and access. Today, we recognize the important open space benefits to be derived from protecting, conserving and restoring stream valleys in the City.
To achieve this goal, the Plan urges the City to establish its existing stream valleys as significant open space resources. In addition, the City should ensure protection of its wetlands, stream buffers, and other natural resources, including those outside the limits of existing RPA’s.
Recommendations for Goal 4
⬚ figure
Four Mile Run stream valley
Provide opportunities for environmental and historical education and interpretation. Consider each stream valley as an educational resource.
Coordinate existing stream management programs including: flood control, stormwater management, urban habitat, recreation, etc.
Look for opportunities for stream valley protection and educational programs near school sites.
Upgrade the health of stream valleys by developing a citywide stream protection strategy as part of a Watershed Management Plan that includes maintaining streams, springs and seeps in a natural condition; encouraging cluster development and green infrastructure; prohibiting buildings, structures and impervious surfaces (except for necessary trails) in stream buffers; increasing vegetation and other beneficial watershed features; keeping inappropriate uses away from stream edges (i.e. dog parks, fertilized ball fields, etc.); and promoting effective and innovative methods for stormwater management and erosion control.
Actively explore and implement, as appropriate, current urban stream restoration techniques in order to create more natural stream valleys that contribute to a positive open space character and improved water quality, while still protecting public health and safety.
Develop significant reforestation and forestation programs along stream buffers, emphasizing the planting of appropriate native species and the removal of exotics. This effort will provide increased infiltration and/or uptake of pollutants, nutrients and sediments, thereby increasing wildlife habitat and minimizing temperature impacts on streams.
Encourage wetland creation and protection projects throughout the
⬚ figure
Figure 20: Goal 4 - Protect and Expand Stream Valleys and Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas
City to help clean our streams and increase wildlife habitat.
Do not allow variances to RPA buffers.
Strive to achieve more than the 100-foot wide buffers for the purpose of protecting natural resource areas.
Improve habitat for birds and other wildlife.
Seek funding from State, Federal and other sources for site protection, demonstration projects, and environmental education programs (see Chapter 6).
Curtail or eliminate the granting of encroachments in stream valley RPA’s and adjacent areas. Enhance identified RPA’s with natural area buffers.
Require the restoration of RPA’s when sites are redeveloped.
Establish on-going regional coordination with Arlington and Fairfax Counties for stream valley and natural resource protection, building on the model established for Four Mile Run.
Conduct a detailed survey of the City’s streams and woodlands, threatened and endangered species, and steep slopes in coordination with the Environmental Policy Commission. The survey should include preparation of specific recommendations for the protection of these resources.
Develop financial and other incentives for private property owners within watershed areas to protect the natural resources of those areas (e.g., by reducing impervious surfaces, reusing rainwater on site, etc.)
Continue to set aside City monies for stream valley restoration projects. Where possible, leverage those funds with grants and other monies in order to restore our streams and stream valleys.
Undertake carefully monitored Adopt-a-Stream and/or similar programs to increase implementation resources and educate citizens about the significance of our stream valleys.
A broad swath of open, under-utilized land forms a “green crescent,” a crescent-shaped area that generally follows the CSX railroad right-of-way from
Four Mile Run to the West End at the Fairfax County border. One of the “last remaining frontiers” for creating and preserving open space in the City, this area is rapidly being lost to development. Newly developing or redeveloping areas present one of the only opportunities for the City to achieve new, large, significant open spaces.
Although pressures will be great to maximize development on any remaining sites in the City, there are numerous opportunities to create a meaningful open space system that meets a variety of needs and connects open space areas both within the area represented within the “green crescent” and elsewhere in the City.
⬚ figure
Figure 21: Goal 5 - Create an Open Space Network in New Development Areas
⬚ figure
New development areas
⬚ figure
Potomac Yards, new development
areas
Encourage use of conservation easements to the maximum extent appropriate.
Incorporate historical and archeological resources in planning for open space and new development projects, where appropriate.
The City should consider using all available planning tools to create an open space network in new development areas. Such tools might include:
Require coordination in the planning and design of open space areas for new developments in order to maximize and link spaces in a definable, usable manner.
Evaluate all new development proposals in the context of their impact on Alexandria’s public and private open space.
Review existing zoning and development standards and requirements in order to achieve adequate open space in all developments citywide; make revisions as necessary. Consider the following zoning concepts:
Require significant open space areas that are large, connected and green as part of any discretionary approval. In addition, require the creation and maintenance of visual linkages among open spaces and key vistas.
Create requirements for the maintenance of proffered open spaces in
new development areas that may include the creation of endowments for such purposes.
Investigate the transfer of density among adjoining or nearby parcels in exchange for open green areas.
Where development has already occurred, consider conservation and scenic easements, taxation programs, and other techniques for the creation, preservation and maintenance of open spaces on these sites.
Coordinate with Arlington and Fairfax Counties to implement the plan to protect and connect open space linkages in new development areas, where applicable.
Some of the most significant open spaces in the City are institutionally owned. The greatest aggregate of these open spaces is located in the geographic center of the City, between Quaker Lane, Seminary Road, N. Howard Street and Braddock Road. These open spaces, as well as others, include significant natural and environmental, as well as historical and archeological,
⬚ figure
Figure 22: Goal 6 - Protect and Preserve Institutionally-Owned Open Space
⬚ figure
Institutional open space with large woodland areas
⬚ figure
Institutional open space
⬚ figure
Institutional open space
⬚ figure
Episcopal High School
resources. The City, together with these institutions, should collaborate on protecting, in perpetuity, these important open spaces. The Plan should develop strategies to preserve and protect these resources.
Preserve and protect all, or significant parts, of the following sites:
Inventory historical and natural resources in these open spaces and assist in writing stewardship plans. Create a mechanism to identify additional properties that should be included in such plans.
Establish a strategy for working collaboratively with the institutions owning such land in order to establish an appropriate approach to open space preservation and public benefit.
Encourage conservation easements or other similar actions, with benefits to institutional and nonprofit organizations.
Encourage the City to explore additional actions, some of which might include:
Consider zoning institutional open space sites with an Open Space Overlay Protection Zone to require significant preservation areas and
⬚ figure
MacArthur School
⬚ figure
MacArthur School playground area
discretionary review of future development proposals.
The open spaces associated with the City's elementary, middle and high schools presently serve both students and neighborhood residents. Most of the spaces around schools are utilized for recreation; however, some of the school sites have significant natural resources that are worthy of preservation. The City should partner with the Alexandria School Board to achieve an open space strategy that recognizes the educational, recreational, and environmental purposes of open space areas around school facilities. This strategy needs to define ways to preserve, maintain and, where possible, expand open space and natural areas around schools for both the schools and the community at large, without adversely affecting the school's ability to provide sufficient space for instructional purposes.
In addition, school sites are important civic landmarks and should have well-landscaped grounds that contribute to the quality of the built environment.
⬚ figure
Figure 23: Goal 7 - Maximize Use of Public School Open Space Areas to Satisfy Local Needs
needs of the surrounding communities.
⬚ figure
Alexandria National Cemetery
Cemeteries provide important open space, visual and cultural resources. Some communities have collaborated with cemeteries to establish trails and protect natural resources. Arlington National Cemetery is a notable nearby example. The Cemetery staff worked with Arlington County to create a scenic bike trail linking Memorial Bridge with Route 50 and to protect natural and archeological resources. Alexandria’s Plan should recognize that cemeteries are important open space and scenic resources for the neighborhoods in which they are located and for the City as a whole. The cemeteries in Alexandria are in critical locations and can provide outstanding linkages to other open spaces. Figure 24 indicates those cemeteries that contribute most significantly to the open space system in Alexandria.
⬚ figure
Alexandria National Cemetery
Protect cultural resources that define the character of cemeteries (e.g., gravestones, fences, etc.).
Increase public awareness that behavior in cemeteries should be different than that which is appropriate in other open spaces.
Support the restoration and commemoration efforts at Freedmen's and other historic cemeteries.
Work with owners and administrators of the cemeteries within the City to protect the sanctity of these sites while still allowing for visual access, open space linkages, natural resource protection, and interpretation where appropriate.
List, map, and create a guide to Alexandria's cemeteries in order to heighten public awareness of their extent and location.
In cemeteries with unique natural resources, consider developing public/private partnerships for the maintenance of sensitive environmental and cultural resource areas, including use of tools such as historic and scenic easements, where appropriate.
⬚ figure
Figure 24: Goal 8 - Preserve and Protect Cemeteries
Vacant properties tend to be small in size (less than three acres). However, some of these sites are situated adjacent to existing parks or other open space sites identified in this study and, therefore, have potential to link to or expand those existing open spaces. Others include modified natural resource areas, such as diverted streams or cleared woodlands. Precedents abound where vacant land has been rehabilitated into parkland through creative planning and design.
⬚ figure
Figure 25: Goal 9 - Create Public Open Space from Vacant Land
CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN
City, Del Ray, etc.)
Implementation Strategies for Goal 9
Undertake a detailed survey of all vacant lands, rights-of-way, and alleys/street ends in order to understand the City’s potential open space opportunities for these sources.
For public vacant lands:
For private vacant lands:
Work collaboratively with other citywide interests (e.g., schools, and affordable housing advocates) to define a strategy from which everyone stands to gain in the definition/use of vacant properties.
Reference conservation easements and other protection measures as a precursor to acquisition.
GOAL 10. LINK AND EXPAND PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRAIL SYSTEM
⬚ figure
Existing trails
The City of Alexandria has established a strong initial system of trails through its Bicycle Transportation and Multi-use Trail Master Plan adopted by City Council in 1998. This City needs to fully implement this plan and maximize non-vehicular, City-wide trail linkages connecting neighborhoods, public facilities and parks, retail establishments, and employment centers in order to encourage healthful recreation and non-motorized transportation. Many of the open spaces identified in this study are suitable for inclusion in the bicycle and trail system. This goal is crucial in the framework concept of “making connections,” particularly in the stream valleys, along the Potomac River, and in the
Green Crescent areas.
Fully integrate the City's multi-use trail system into the City's transportation planning process, thereby recognizing bicycling and walking as important components in addressing Alexandria's transportation needs. Special consideration should be given to those segments of the population without access to personal vehicles, principally children, the economically disadvantaged, and the physically challenged.
Expand the City's multi-use trail system to address the objective of the City's bicycle and trail master transportation plan to "reduce the rate of increase of vehicle trips."
Expand the City's multi-use trail system to address the need to expand recreational opportunities to improve the physical health of the citizens of Alexandria.
Implement the Alexandria Heritage Trail as a component of the multi-use trail plan to promote historical and cultural understanding of the City, thereby promoting educational and tourism opportunities.
⬚ figure
Figure 26: Goal 10 - Link and Expand Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail System
⬚ figure
Trail at Oronoco Bay Park
⬚ figure
Trail at Oronoco Bay Park
Work with the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services to implement bike trails in public rights-of-ways (e.g., streets)
Work on a site-by-site basis with private property owners to seek easements for trail development and expansion.
Reassess and revise the Alexandria Trails Plan to provide the connections identified in the Open Space Plan.
Alexandria's Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Department of Transportation and Environmental Services should coordinate regional planning efforts for trail linkages with Fairfax and Arlington Counties, VDOT and the National Park Service.
The City should aggressively seek private, state, and Federal funding for continued trail development (see Chapter 6).
The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Services; Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities; and Office of Historic Alexandria should work together to improve trail signage, provide public education through pamphlets, maps, and web sites, mark historic sites and natural resources, and create events to encourage trail use by both walkers and riders.
Evaluate the City's network of public alleys and define those most appropriate for use as trail and open space connectors.
The Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Transportation and Environmental Services should collaborate with the School Department to identify "Safe Routes to School" using the trail system and other public streets. Coordinate with the proposed "Safe Routes" national effort and seek funding when it becomes available.
The Department of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Department of Planning and Zoning should encourage developers to include facilities for bicyclists and walkers in their Transportation Management Plans.
The Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and Transportation and Environmental Services should develop a multi-lingual public education campaign to promote bicycling and walking as effective and healthful ways to get around town while reducing traffic congestion.
⬚ figure
King Street metro functions as a major gateway to the city of Alexandria
Streets, and their associated streetscapes and gateways, are crucial open space resources for a community. They function as places of trade, play, communication and gathering. They are the front doors for our neighborhoods. King Street, recently improved with brick sidewalks, trees and furnishings, is Alexandria’s main street and a memorable place to gather for important events. Commonwealth Avenue is a desirable address because of its tree-lined median and attractive streetscape. With few opportunities for open space development, we need to look to our streets as places for beautification and linkage.
The Plan encourages the City to develop an interconnected network of pedestrian friendly streets. In addition, the City should create entrance gateways that provide a positive image of arrival.
| Protect: | Enhance: |
|---|---|
| • Mt. Vernon Avenue | • Washington Street |
| • Commonwealth Avenue | • Route 1 |
| • Braddock Road | • Mt. Vernon Avenue |
| • King Street | • Braddock Road |
| • Quaker Lane | • King Street |
| • Jordan Street | • Beauregard Street |
| • Howard Street | • Duke Street |
| • Beauregard Street | • Eisenhower Avenue |
| • Seminary Road | • Van Dorn Street |
| • Russell Road | • West Glebe Road |
⬚ figure
Commonwealth Ave streetscape
⬚ figure
Establish an interagency working group with representation from the Departments of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities; Transportation and Environmental Services; and Planning and Zoning as well as from the Office of Historic Alexandria and VDOT, and other relevant commissions and groups to create and implement a comprehensive streetscape program for the City. This should encompass:
This interagency group should also consider implementation of a gateway improvement program, to include:
Establish design guidelines for streetscape elements that recognize and reflect the individual character of each neighborhood or area of the City. These might be derived, in part, from the historical features of each area.
Require adherence to design guidelines for development applications and other approvals affecting streetscape.
Provide adequate levels of infrastructure to support and maintain these streetscape/gateway programs. In addition to City funding, consider calling upon volunteer programs such as Tree Stewards, Adopt-a-Park, and Adopt-a-Marker programs for heritage trail sites in order to support these efforts.
CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN
GOAL 12. EXPAND CITYWIDE STREET TREE PROGRAM AND PROTECT EXISTING TREES AND WOODLAND AREAS
Our City's beauty is created, in part, through its street trees, wooded properties and environmental corridors. The City has an active program to continue planting street trees and protect vegetation in its parks. The City should maximize opportunities to enhance its tree coverage and protect its natural woodland resources.
Recommendations for Goal 12
⬚ figure
Figure 28: Goal 12 - Expand Citywide Street Tree Program and Protect Existing Trees and Woodland Areas
⬚ figure
Woodland area
Inova Hospital
St. Agnes / St. Steven’s School sites
Rosemont
Del Ray
Park Fairfax
Old Town
Neighborhoods bordered by:
Address stream valleys protection areas including:
[See recommendations for specific streetscape programs below.]
Implementation Strategies for Goal 12
Establish an aggressive campaign to involve community organizations in protecting existing trees and planting new trees within each neighborhood. Provide incentives for the planting and maintenance of trees on private property.
Strengthen existing tree protection regulations. Establish a City Tree Plan and identify areas for increased forestation.
Support and strengthen the newly established Arlington and Alexandria Tree Steward Program to assist in tree maintenance, planting, and public education.
Request the Department of Planning and Zoning to research the feasibility of establishing a Tree Cover Overlay District. This designation would provide an additional means of protection for trees in areas of the City where these are essential to their quality and character. Distinguish between areas where tree crown cover is provided on private versus public lands.
Amend City’s landscape and streetscape guidelines to improve tree planting areas (e.g., continuous trenches, enlarged planting areas, greater soil volumes, irrigation and drainage) and increase tree coverage requirements for new developments where possible.
Strengthen the City’s ability to maintain its existing tree inventory (e.g., institute a watering program for new trees, etc.).
Evaluate existing City tree crown cover based on current American Forests recommended standards for residential and commercial areas.
Create specific agreements with VDOT for maintenance of wooded areas along highways through the City.
⬚ figure
GOAL 13. ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF CIVIC PARKS AT AND ADJACENT TO METRO STATIONS
Open spaces adjacent to Metro Stations can serve as important civic spaces; they should function as welcoming spaces to our community. Currently Metro Station areas consist primarily of roads, parking lots and bus shelters. As these areas become sites for redevelopment, civic parks should be key elements in the development program that can accommodate civic gatherings, events and other formal and informal outdoor uses.
Coordinate with WMATA to enhance opportunities at each Metro station area, to create and upgrade civic spaces, and provide safe pedestrian connections.
Provide open space/greenway linkages between Eisenhower Avenue
⬚ figure
Figure 29: Goal 13 - Encourage the Creation of Civic Parks at and Adjacent to Metro Stations
Metro Station and Cameron Run Stream Valley.
Provide a new, safe open space/greenway linkage between the Parker Gray / Slaters Lane areas and the Braddock Road Metro Station.
Provide a new, safe open space/greenway linkage between the Eisenhower Avenue Metro Station and the Potomac River waterfront.
Develop signs for Metro Stations to mark access to trails and open spaces.
Establish a collaborative relationship with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to develop a program for upgrading open space at Metro stations.
Establish a working relationship between the appropriate City departments and WMATA to maximize opportunities to create additional civic space in new joint development efforts in and around the City’s four Metro stations.
Seek opportunities to link Metro stations to Alexandria’s trail network.
⬚ figure
Interstate 395
Like civic spaces at Metro Stations, interchanges and highway corridors function as the front doors to our community for the driver. Interstate-395 has a narrow but significant strip of vegetation along its edges and I-95 runs parallel to Cameron Run. The City should work with VDOT to ensure protection of vegetation along Interstate highway corridors that traverse and bound the City, and to upgrade the landscape qualities of all of these highway interchanges and corridors.
⬚ figure
Interstate 395
I-95 at:
I-395 at:
CHAPTER 5 THE PLAN
Quaker Lane
Highway Corridors:
Roadway enhancements should maximize opportunities for forestation and reforestation where appropriate.
Implementation Strategies for Goal 14
The Departments of Transportation and Environmental Services and Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities should collaborate with VDOT on upgrading maintenance of, and developing design standards for, highway interchanges and corridors throughout Alexandria.
The City should monitor all highway expansion programs proposed by VDOT to ensure protection of existing landscape plans.
GOAL 15. PROTECT PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE
Most of Alexandria’s open space is privately owned and inaccessible to the general public. Nevertheless, this land provides valuable green space for its
⬚ figure
Figure 30: Goal 14 - Beautify Interchanges and Highway Corridors
surrounding community, creates a significant visual amenity, and contributes to the control of microclimatic conditions in the City. Individual property owners, even those with relatively small amounts of open space, can participate in efforts to retain that open space by making careful land use decisions on the need for home additions, for subdivision of large lots to create additional dwellings, on the creative use of easements to provide protection as well as some tax benefit for retaining open space.
Educate private landowners on the importance (economic, aesthetic, environmental) of their open spaces, and on available tools for preserving and protecting that space (e.g., easements, etc.).
Explore legal and planning strategies to encourage private landowners to preserve and protect their open space areas.
Request that the Office of Real Estate Assessment undertake a study comparing the values of private properties in Alexandria adjacent to/not adjacent to open space in order to document the quantitative value of open space for the City.
In furtherance of the strong conservation policy of the City of Alexandria, preserve privately owned open space that meets any one of the following criteria that have been identified by representatives of the people of Alexandria as yielding significant public benefit and therefore being worthy of preservation or conservation.
Open small areas of privately held open space in already congested and developed areas for passive neighborhood enjoyment, visual relief, scenic value, and screening and buffering pruposes.
Open space that provides relief from urban closeness, especially small lots in dense urban neighborhoods containing neighborhood gardens, trees or other natural features.
Land areas to enhance buffering and screening between uses, such as between a developed area and a park or historic site.
Land adjacent to public parkland, institutional sites, natural areas, water bodies, cemeteries, other land preserved by easement, all in furtherance of the specific Goals of this Open Space Plan.
Open space that contributes to the scenic enjoyment of the general public if development of the property would impair the scenic character of the urban landscape or would interfere with a scenic panorama that can be enjoyed from a park, nature preserve, road, water body, trail, or historic structure or land area, and such area or transportation way is open to, or utilized by, the public.
Open space containing or adjacent to any designated historical or cultural resource that provides a buffer or context for such resources.
Open space that contains any specimen trees, significant groupings of hardwood or other trees that add to the city's tree canopy, open meadowlands, sloping terrain or other significant natural features;and
Open Space not identified above that meets Goals 1-14 of the Alexandria Open Space Plan
Provide a biannual seminar on easements that are currently available to all residents of the City. Such easements are available through the Alexandria Historical Restoration and Preservation Commission, and through other organizations accepting easements. Individuals owning properties highlighted in or close to those identified in the Open Space Plan, as well as representatives from the real estate and development communities would be specifically invited to attend these sessions.
Actively support the request for an amendment to Article 4 of Chapter 32,Title 58.1 of the Virginia Code, which would decrease to one-quarter acre the minimum acreage required to receive the tax benefit for creation of an easement.
Support an increase to the recordation tax for real property deeds recorded for conveyance of land within the City. If then approved by the General Assembly, this authorization could provide the beginning of an open space purchase fund.
Consider zoning mechanisms to address the problem of infill development and the incremental loss of open space as a result of home additions and individual land use decisions.
Appropriate significant public financial resources and grant real estate tax relief in order to demonstrate a commitment by the City to the protection or privately owned open space through conservation easements and other preservation tools.
It is evident from the list of actions described in Chapter 5, that the implementation of the Open Space Plan will be a long-term effort on the part of the City. However, that effort needs to begin with a few meaningful steps. At the Open Space Summit, participants were asked to identify the three actions that they considered to be top priorities for the City to accomplish in the short-term. The Open Space Steering Committee took these responses into account when developing the list of priority actions for the City to undertake first in its implementation of the Plan. As a result of this process, the following eleven priorities were identified (in no specific order):
Work with the community to create the Alexandria Open Space Conservancy
Employ a full-time, professional grants writer to pursue public and private sector funding for open space and trails related activities. It is possible that this position could be shared between the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services (T&ES).
Work actively to achieve settlement on the following properties in order to begin completion of the Alexandria Waterfront Plan:
The Departments of Parks and Recreation, T&ES, and Planning and Zoning should collaborate in the preparation of a Greenway Management Plan for the Holmes Run Stream Valley to serve as a model for other stream valley plans. This should be developed in conjunction with the proposed Watershed Management Plan to be undertaken by T&ES, as well as the planning project for Four Mile Run being carried out in conjunction with Arlington County.
Focus on RPA protection and enhancement:
Strongly consider the following properties for easements, acquisition, or other methods of open space preservation within the short term.
These sites are critical to achieving the goals of the open space plan: (Note: Specific addresses will be added, where applicable)
⬚ figure
Figure 31: Priority Actions
Revise the City's existing zoning requirements to achieve better open space in new developments.
Consider the open space opportunities east of Simpson Field for the creation of active recreational facilities.
The Open Space Conservancy should, as one of its initial tasks, work with the Episcopal Church, the George Washington Masonic Memorial, and possibly other large institutional landholders, to develop a workable Open Space Conservation Strategy for institutional land within the Episcopal High School, the Theological Seminary, St. Agnes and St. Stephens Schools, and Masonic Memorial properties.
Rehabilitate Commonwealth Avenue as a significant parkway and model for future parkways in the City. Rehabilitation tasks would include:
Implement the following new path/trail linkages:
Establish a streetscape and gateway enhancement program for Route 1 through the City.
Implement a CITYgreen analysis1 to assess the amount of tree cover currently in the City. Define a legally enforceable strategy for protecting existing tree cover, preventing substantial reduction to this tree cover, and enhancing the tree cover throughout the City.
This section addresses various funding mechanisms related to implementation
(Note: This footnote is blank in the provided source image). ↩
of the Alexandria Open Space Plan. The discussion is organized around four general categories:
It should be noted that while individual approaches to funding are identified in terms of one of these four categories, there is often overlap among categories with regard to specific implementation strategies that the City might wish to adopt.
The funding strategies described below can be applied, at different levels, to each of the goals set forth in the Open Space Plan, as presented in Chapter 5 of this report. Therefore, accompanying the discussion of each funding option is a listing of those goals to which these options are most applicable. This arrangement should assist the City of Alexandria in developing an open space strategy that achieves the open space goals that it has defined, within a realistic time frame.
The funding strategy is an important element of the open space plan, because it seeks to identify a variety of tools that can provide sustainable, practical funding support for protecting, expanding and promoting Alexandria's open space resources. Currently, the City uses some tools, such as proffers, and in one instance, land use assessment abatement techniques, to fund open space land acquisition. It uses other tools, such as a volunteer program to provide operational support. The tools discussed below will expand these current efforts.
Applicable Goals: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15
One of the lessons learned from the study of successful open space and land preservation efforts elsewhere is the need for a strong advocacy/support group. Examples abound. At the national level, the Nature Conservancy performs this function, and at the regional level, the Potomac Conservancy is active. Functions can include education, lobbying, funding support to others, direct funding of land and easement acquisitions, holding title to open space properties, as well as operational support. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, the creation of a locally focused Open Space Conservancy is a key recommendation.
Typically such a group is established as a 501(c)(3) not-for profit organization, which enables it to engage in extensive fundraising efforts. In this way, the 501(c)(3) advocacy/support group can act as an intermediary between donors and government. Contributors do not feel that they are giving their
money to the government per se, but to a benevolent organization, and they often have a higher level of confidence that their funds will be protected and used in the manner intended. In addition, donations of either land or cash are tax deductible to the donor.
While some advocacy/support groups limit themselves to fundraising, education and non-operational activities, other groups, which are typically “friends” groups, take more active roles in operations. Involvement can include input on management and staffing decisions, participation in concessions and programs, and/or management responsibility for specific facilities or services.
For the City of Alexandria, the Historic Alexandria Foundation can serve as a model for what can be accomplished by a strong support/advocacy group. The Foundation has been active in protecting and preserving the city’s historic resources. It partners with individual residents and corporate citizens, raises funds, and is a funding source for small grants (typically between $2,000 and $5,000 annually). It educates, facilitates, and coordinates.
Elsewhere in Northern Virginia, the private Potomac Conservancy and the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust perform many of the same functions as the Historic Alexandria Foundation. These kinds of functions are critical to the successful implementation of the Open Space Plan and may best be performed by an Alexandria Open Space Conservancy dedicated to open space preservation within the Alexandria community. Such an entity may need to partner, from time to time, with other groups (e.g., the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust) when the need arises.
Applicable Goals: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10
This section outlines funding mechanisms for the expansion of existing open space and developing new open space opportunities. Acquisition and development of open space may involve dedicated funding, other city funding mechanisms, balanced development schemes, and/or the purchase of easements on available property. In addition to their usefulness as tools for acquisition and development, these funding strategies may also be useful for preservation and maintenance purposes.
Dedicated Trusts and Funds
One characteristic of successful programs dealing with open space land acquisition is the presence of a dedicated structure that serves to protect incoming funds and to ensure that monies go for the specified use(s), such as land acquisition, open space recreation, natural resource protection, cultural/historic open space resource protection or other uses identified in this plan. Types of organizational structures include land banks, land trusts, or land preservation funds. Names are less important than the functions they provide,
and their (perceived) independence from government. Several local jurisdictions have established dedicated structures for collecting and dispersing funds for open space land acquisition. Based on these successful models and other models within the City and elsewhere, the City of Alexandria should consider the establishment of a dedicated open space fund to support many of the goals set forth in the open space plan.
Alexandria-based and other local examples of dedicated structures and funding mechanisms include the following:
Land Trust – The Fairfax County Park Authority Land Trust is a dedicated fund into which residents and community interests can make voluntary donations intended for the purposes of land acquisition. Initially, the fund received limited promotional support and, consequently, its success was also limited. As of June 2001, the trust fund had received $130,000 in donations. Subsequent to that date, a full time director was hired and the expectations for much stronger fundraising are high.
Conservation Fund – The Fairfax City Open Space Conservation Fund is a dedicated fund for land acquisition that has been established by the City of Fairfax. It provides for an increase in the local real property tax rate on residential and commercial properties, of up to $.05 per $100 of assessed valuation. There is a five-year term limit. Voter support was high in the non-binding referendum that passed by a 2-1 margin. For the current year, the incremental tax rate has been set at $.03 per $100, and it is anticipated that receipts for the year will total some $1 million. An equivalent tax of $.03 per $100 applied to residential and commercial property in Alexandria could generate almost $5 million.
A similar funding model for the open space plan could involve the dedication of a portion of other taxes to the purchase of open space property. An option that was initiated by and endorsed by the Alexandria City Council is the implementation of a local Recordation Tax. This increased tax would require approval from the Virginia General Assembly which, in the past, has been reluctant to pass the necessary legislation. However, for the current year, the assembly has agreed to include this funding mechanism in a study of funding issues. Elsewhere in Northern Virginia, the Town of Vienna has been considering an increase in the local meals (restaurant) tax for a set number of years to fund the purchase of land for a new park.
Historic Alexandria Preservation Fund - A precedent for a dedicated fund already exists in Alexandria in the form of the Historic Alexandria Preservation Fund of the Historic Alexandria Foundation. Resources in this fund are generated through the Foundation’s annual antiques sale. A total of $5,000 is used annually to support the successful grants program of the organization.
Local Service District – The Code of Virginia (15.2-2400) permits localities to establish service districts for the purposes of providing enhanced services and/or facilities. Districts typically focus on transportation services, fire services, or sewer and water services. They are funded by a special property tax surcharge. In Northern Virginia, special service districts are used to support facilities such as the Reston and McLean Community Centers. Legislation was recently passed to allow the establishment of service districts for the purpose of purchasing land and maintaining open space areas.
Open Space Fund (developer fees) – A program providing for developer fees and contributions can be established that would be dedicated to funding the acquisition and development of additional open space. Many communities have been successful in implementing this source of funding. Individual development sites are often not large enough, or are inappropriately located, to supply valuable open space for public use and enjoyment. Hence, a developer fee, either in lieu of, or in addition to, the provision of on-site open space would add to other funds, and would make purchases and development of desirable sites possible.
Other Funding Mechanisms
1. Bonds:
General Obligation Bonds – General Obligation bonds are instruments of local government capital finance. The government sells the bonds to raise funds, and then pays back the principal and interest on the bonds after a period of time has elapsed, usually 20 to 30 years. Bonds are often used to fund parks and open space projects. Depending on state or local law, bonds either require voter approval (such as in most Virginia counties) or city council authorization (such as in Alexandria and most Virginia cities.) For example, the 1998 Fairfax County Bond issue, which was supported by over 70 percent of the voters, included some $20 million out of a total of $75 million for land acquisition. Arlington County schedules a bond referendum package every two years and always includes proposals for parks bond funding. Arlington voters have approved these bond issues by substantial margins in all but one instance over the past two decades.
Revenue Bonds – Unlike General Obligation bonds, capital improvement bonds (such as revenue bonds) are not subject to levy limits and require only a public hearing, not a referendum. However, revenue bonds are typically used only on projects specifically included in a capital improvement plan, and when a dedicated source of funding is identified as the source of repayment. Dedicated funding sources can include certain taxes, utility fees, and other fees and revenue streams.
Examples:
In Virginia, transportation revenue bonds have been issued using part of the existing state recordation tax as a revenue source.
In 1998, Austin (Texas) citizens voted to apportion part of their rising property tax coffers to acquiring more open space. Citizens approved a $40.45 million bond offering to be repaid over 30 years. Thus far, 500 acres of open space have been purchased with the bond money.
Property Taxes – In Virginia, local governing bodies can approve an increase in the local property tax rate to finance a bond issue or to provide cash for open space acquisition, create a community-managed open space trust fund, or pay for a specific open space purchase. Typically, the increases can range from 1 to 2 cents on every $100 of assessed valuation. The City of Fairfax advisory referendum mentioned above and subsequent Fairfax City Council action present a good example of how a community-supported increase in property taxes can be utilized for the acquisition of open space.
Sales Taxes – In some communities, the local sales tax rate has been increased to finance bonds for open space acquisition, create a trust fund, or pay for the acquisition of a specific piece of property. This approach is typically very beneficial for cities. Large sums of money can be generated from a very small tax increase on purchased goods and, in many cases, a large proportion of a city's retail sales typically comes from non-residents and visitors who end up paying for a share of the city's open space acquisition projects. In Virginia, the extension of the sales tax would require approval from the general assembly. In the immediate future, transportation and education capital projects are likely to be the only candidates for sales tax increase; however, if a sales tax increase is approved for education and/or transportation, it will make it easier financially for open space acquisition projects to be included in Alexandria's Capital Improvement Program.
General Fund Support – A community may also choose not to raise tax rates, per se, when financing a bond or providing funds for direct purchase for open space land. In the 1990's, many governments used General Fund surpluses to support such initiatives. The City of Alexandria's large annual contribution to capital reserves from the General Fund ($14 million is proposed in FY 2003) is a good example of this reallocation.
Easements
A tool that is growing in acceptance by non profit organizations and govern-
ments is the conservation easement. A conservation easement is a legally recorded agreement by which landowners may voluntarily restrict the use of their land. Provided that certain conditions are met, donors of easements may be eligible for certain income, estate, and property tax benefits. The income and estate tax benefits can be substantial, while the property tax benefits may or may not be substantial, depending largely on the relinquishment of development rights. To gain preferential tax treatment, the land to be protected must often provide a recognizable public benefit, such as protecting rare species, public water supplies, or scenic vistas visible from roads. Public access is not necessarily a requirement. Although the duration of a conservation easement can vary depending on the desires of the landowner, tax benefits generally are available only for perpetual easements. A landowner that conveys a conservation easement retains all rights to use the land for any purposes that do not interfere with the preservation of the property as stated in the terms of the easement.
In 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted new legislation that will allow landowners who provide substantial easements to "sell," or transfer for cash, the value of the resulting tax deduction, provided that their income is too low to benefit from the deduction. This significant legislation will mean that landowners on fixed, or other limited, incomes who could not formerly take advantage of the tax credit incentive would be able to obtain cash in lieu of this credit. The law was also changed to allow a minimum of one-quarter acre (versus the one acre previously required) to be eligible for conservation easement tax credits.
Examples:
Fairfax County's land acquisition plan involves approaching owners about putting easements on their property. Since 2000, 241 acres have been protected through easements.
The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust has been working with private landowners in Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington Counties, as well as recently in the City of Alexandria, to secure conservation easements. Successes include a 12-acre residential parcel in Great Falls and a wooded 13-acre parcel near Waterford.
In Alexandria, this approach was recently used to secure Civil War era fortifications and adjacent open space at Battery Heights.
The use of conservation easements will be an excellent tool in making the linkages/connections recommended in the Open Space Plan, in order to achieve a continuous open space system within the city, and the use of easements will supplement implementation of the Potomac River Waterfront Plan.
Working with landowners and development attorneys to secure conservation easements will be an important part of the overall strategy for preserving
Alexandria's open space. Much of the effort here will be locating willing landowners and educating them about the benefits of this action. A key part of the strategy will be to position the City so that it has the Right of First Refusal on large parcels of land and other critical properties, as they become available.
The purchase of easements, rather than voluntary conveyances has also been a viable preservation tool in the past. However, this approach is subject to the ups and downs of economic cycles, and in the near term, may be somewhat more difficult given the current economic climate. Availability of funding through private and institutional sources has been adversely impacted by the recent performance of the stock market, and one important source of public funds has been curtailed. In the latter case, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (V.O.F.), the state-sponsored vehicle for the purchase of easements for large expanses of land, was de-funded in 2001. (Also, it should be noted that Alexandria has not established a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, so the V.O.F. reports that the City is unlikely to benefit from V.O.F. programs even when funding is available.)
Balanced development can be loosely defined as financing the preservation of open space by developing only a portion of the property in question. Normally, balanced development initiatives are undertaken when a desirable tract of land becomes available on the open market. The balanced development approach allows the government to guide the development of the property and ensure the enhanced and continuing value of the property in question, as well as surrounding properties.
Often, because of the economic highest and best use valuation, local government cannot financially or technically compete with the private sector when it comes to bidding for new land. The balanced development approach makes competition with the private sector easier for local government, by enlisting a third party entity to purchase the land for it. The third party then resells its land to the different entities involved. It may sell 20 percent of the land to an interested developer and the remaining 80 percent to the government. Because the third party is often a non-profit group or a conglomeration of local business, citizens, and environmental groups, the governmental entity is charged little for its portion of the land. In this way, a large percentage of the open space is preserved at a reduced cost to the public. However, this approach requires a private entity with significant financial capabilities.
Within the City of Alexandria, the balanced development approach might be most applicable in areas such as Eisenhower Valley, where substantial new development is likely to occur and where preservation of open space as part of the development planning process will help preserve and enhance the city's "last remaining open space frontier."
Applicable Goals: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12
This section presents examples of funding mechanisms that can offset the operational costs of parks and open space. Most of the programs below aid in the maintenance/preservation/restoration of open space – a focus of the above goals.
Volunteer programs have been used successfully to reduce budgetary requirements, enhance parks system operations, and generate a base of support for private contributions. Specific examples of volunteer applications include docent living history activities, security, gardening and landscaping, event registrations, and so forth. As a mechanism for preserving, protecting, and expanding open space in Alexandria, volunteer groups can organize as friends groups or be managed by the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities. They can help with environmental clean-up activities, education awareness, administrative work, and other activities.
The Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities has already experienced success with the use of volunteers. However, by placing greater emphasis on volunteer programs, the City will likely achieve an even greater level of success. To this end the following actions should be considered: greater attention to volunteer recruitment and training, establishment of well-defined volunteer responsibilities and guidelines, and performance monitoring. It is also important to continue to give feedback and recognition to the volunteers.
Based on the experience of other programs, it is estimated that Alexandria could expect to generate some 10,000 to 15,000 volunteer hours, or the equivalent of some five to eight full time employees, by utilizing volunteers. Savings from these volunteer hours could be used for other necessities or the hours could be used to maintain/preserve existing open space.
Another benefit of active volunteer programs is the use of volunteer hours to fulfill certain matching requirements on grants. Valued at, say, $15 per hour on average, the potential hours identified above could be worth $150,000 to $225,000 for the purposes of matching grant applications. (Note: depending on the type of service or activity, the value of labor contributions might range from $7 to $50 per hour).
The use of corporate resources in supporting parks & recreation activities and open space preservation initiatives is a relatively new phenomenon, and there are mixed opinions as to whether tapping corporate support is appropriate,
and if so, under what circumstances. Nonetheless, it is a potential funding resource, and one of the early tasks in the implementation of the Open Space Plan should be, in concert with others in City government, to make a final determination regarding its desirability. With this caveat, the subject of corporate funding support is discussed in the paragraphs below.
Corporate funding support could apply to both operations and acquisition; however, because of the generally short term nature of the commitment and magnitude of funding that might be generated, it is perhaps most practical to address corporate support under the operational funding heading.
Corporate support can also be either direct or indirect. Direct support, which includes sponsorships, advertising and naming rights, is typically done by the corporation itself through its marketing or public affairs functions. Direct support is discussed below. For the purposes of this discussion, indirect support refers to funding through a corporate foundation, which is discussed later.
Corporate sponsorship and advertising involve funds paid to a parks agency in return for establishing a linkage between the corporation (or in some cases, institution) and park users. This linkage can be achieved through identification of the corporation as an underwriter of an event, such as a concert. Placement of advertising materials in event brochures or advertising on scoreboards are examples of this identification strategy. The same linkage and corporate exposure can be achieved through identification of the corporate donor as a sponsor of the agency or designation of corporate products as the “official” products of the agency. Examples of the latter could range from exclusive pour rights for a soft drink company to exclusive suntan lotion for aquatic facilities. Ultimately, the value of corporate sponsorship or advertising is a function of exposure, or number of people who will receive the message. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, a global, comprehensive approach to corporate sponsorship would make sense. By including the total recreational budget of the Recreation and Parks Department, the level of exposure would be maximized, thus maximizing the corporate income potential. Including trails and other open space assets is important to this strategy because of the high levels of utilization that can be achieved in this manner.
The second approach to tapping into corporate funding is through the sale of naming rights. Typically, this approach involves funds paid to a public agency/facility owner by a corporation in exchange for the right to affix the company’s name to the facility. This funding approach is most common for large sports venues such as stadiums and arenas; however, it is making its way into other types of facilities, and it appears likely that it is just a matter of time before naming rights reach into the public recreation domain. For example, several public recreation providers have sponsorship agreements with product and service providers, and in a related area, the Fairfax County School Board is actively investigating the issues of naming rights for its facilities. For the Alexandria Open Space Plan, trailhead signage, benches, parks and other recreational facilities could all lend themselves to this approach.
Applicable Goals: 1 through 15
Public and institutional grants may be used for both acquisition of open space and funding of operations. Historically, grants have ranged in value from as little as $100 to over $1 million. As noted previously, the resources available for grants are subject to normal economic cycles. Currently, the amount of awards and the frequency with which grants are awarded is decreasing. State governments across the country have de-funded many open space-related grants as public coffers shrunk in response to a slowing economy. However, as the economy strengthens, the level of grant funding should bounce back, and as part of a long-term strategy, grants should continue to be useful sources of funding.
In the face of shrinking resources and increased competition for grant funding, knowledge of and experience with grants will be increasingly important for success. The retention of a full-time professional grant writer, and perhaps a development consultant, focused on open space and trails grants will be critical since specific experience and skill sets are useful in the grant writing and implementation processes. As well, success in tapping corporate and institutional funding most often involves understanding the donor's requirements and needs, and tailoring a responsive proposal that links these requirements and needs to a specific project or program.
With both public and institutional grants, separation of the recipient from government through establishment of an open space conservancy to receive the donations may, at times, also be important.
Sources of public and institutional grants that could be pursued in the implementation of the Alexandria Open Space Plan are identified below.
Public Grants
Public grant programs are typically administered at the state level, and include programs that disperse funds coming from the federal government, as well as from programs that originate at the state level. A smaller number of programs are administered directly by the federal agency controlling the funding.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (Applies to goals: 1, 4, 5, 9, 15) The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered through the Virginia Outdoor Foundation. It is available for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities and requires a 50/50 match from localities.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants (Applies to goals 3 and 4)
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants are disbursed by the federal government through the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grant funds support acquisition, restoration, and enhancement projects involving wetland and wetland associated uplands. Begun in 1989, the program provides matching grants to private or public organizations or to individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds for the grant have been increasing gradually almost every year since its inception. In 2001, $40 million was allocated for N.A.W.C.A. grants. Most of this money was matched on a 2:1 basis. A few were matched at 1:1. The N.A.W.C.A. small grant program provides funding up to $50,000. An average small grant amounts to just under $40,000. The N.A.W.C.A. large grant program provides between $50,000 and $1 million.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund (Applies to goals 1, 3 and 4) The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund supports environmental education and action-oriented conservation and restoration projects within Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay watershed. The fund earns revenue by selling license plates with Chesapeake Bay designs on them. It disperses its earning through grants to state and local governments, as well as nonprofit entities. In 2001, the fund awarded more than $450,000 in grants to some 75 different projects.
Recreation Trails Program (Virginia Recreation Trails Fund) (Applies to goals 5 and 10) This is a small, competitive grant program that distributes monies from the ISTEA/TEA21 program. It is intended to aid the construction and rehabilitation of recreational trails. The funding, which is administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), is not restricted to non-motorized trails, but they are its focus. Grant monies cannot be used for planning, or for construction of "incomplete" trails (i.e., those that are designed to be a part of a future system.) Stand-alone trails, as well as connector trails, are the focuses of this funding. This is an 80/20 matching fund grant, with 20 percent of the total project costs required of the local organization. Grants range from $10,000 to $150,000, with typical grants amounting to $50,000 to $60,000. Total funds available in 2001 are $800,000 (2000 funding totaled about $1 million.) The grant is funded at least through 2003 and, if renewed at that time, would be funded for an additional six years. The W&OD trail in Northern Virginia has been a recipient of these funds in the past. The City of Alexandria is also a current recipient of TEA21 funding for the Eisenhower Bike Trail project, and has applied for additional funding under this program.
Virginia Land Conservation Fund (Applies to Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9) The Virginia Land Conservation Fund (VLCF) has been set up to provide matching grants to localities, public bodies, and nonprofit organizations for purchasing fee simple title to and interest in real property for land conservation purposes. Grant categories are:
In the past, grants have been used to help the Nature Conservancy acquire 458 acres of land adjacent to the Commonwealth’s Cleveland Barrens Natural Areas Preserve, to help Fairfax County acquire 2.9 acres of easement at three sites in Vienna and Oakton, and to help York County acquire nine easements on the York River beach to provide a continuous pedestrian linkage/trail along the riverfront.
Historically, VLCF grants have ranged in value from $30,000 to $1 million, with an average gift of $140,000. However, the Virginia State Assembly appropriated no funding for the VLCF in 2001, and the VLCF does not expect any new funding in 2002. The fund has suspended acceptance of applications for the time being.
Transportation Enhancement Activities (Applies to goals 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) Transportation enhancement grants are administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation and are available for a wide range of activities defined in 12 categories, some more specific than others. Examples of projects eligible for grant funding include trails, streetscapes (pedestrian amenities), landscaping, preservation of scenic easements, billboard removal, and restoration of historic properties related to transportation (train depot, lighthouse, etc.) This is an 80/20 matching fund grant, and allows for the local 20 percent to be in the form of cash, or donations of land, materials, or in-kind services. There is no minimum, but the agency will only pay up to $1 million annually to a single entity. Total grant funding available in the State of Virginia for 2001 was $18.5 million, and is expected to remain at or above this level. Typical grants total $150,000 to $250,000, but projects as small as $5,000 to $6,000 are frequently funded.
Certified Local Government Grants (Applies to goals 1, 2, 6, 8) The Certified Local Government(CLG) Grant program establishes a partnership between local governments, the federal historic preservation program, and a state’s Department of Historic Resources (DHR). The program allows state DHR’s, to recommend for certification local governments that have put key elements of a sound local preservation program in place in their communities. Designation as CLGs gives local governments a way to participate more formally in the state and national historic preservation programs. The City of Alexandria qualifies for CLG grants, as it is one of 24 CLG’s in Virginia.
Because CLG grants use federally appropriated funds, the de-funding of CLG’s is less likely than the de-funding of grants supported by the state General Assembly. Typically, Virginia’s CLG budget is $85,000. Awards range in size from $5,000 to $25,000, with an average award of $15,000. Generally, there is a match of some sort, but no match is required. CLG grants may
be used for surveys of architectural or archaeological resources and historic preservation planning, among other things.
Historic Preservation Project Grant (Applies to goals 1, 3, 4, 6, 8) In 2001, the General Assembly in the State of Virginia did not appropriate funds for Historic Preservation Project Grants. In the past, these grants were used to preserve/restore local historic sites and natural areas. In a "normal" year, the state legislature would award up to 75 grants ranging in value from $5,000 to $100,000. The Historic Alexandria Foundation received $10,000 in 2001, and $28,500 in 2002 from this source for two sites in the City.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Applies to goals 6, 7, 15) These grants, administered by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, are primarily given for voluntary habitat restoration projects, as they are geared more toward restoration than toward acquisition. Most recipients are private landowners. Projects are extremely varied in nature, but can include restoration, planting, dam removal, outreach, habitat preservation and easements. This agency funds relatively few projects in urban areas. All grants are matching, and the ratio of federal to other funds ranges from 1:3 to 3:1, depending on the project and the number of partners involved. Total annual distributions range from $1 to $1.5 million, and the typical grant is $50,000 to $100,000.
Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) (Applies to goals 1, 7, 9) Funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered at the local level. Focus is mainly in providing affordable housing for low and moderate-income families. Can be used for the development of recreational facilities and open space; however, since the city is dedicated to affordable housing, its limited funding available through CBDG is unlikely to be utilized for open space initiatives.
Urban and Community Forestry Grants (Applies to goals 11, 12, 13, 14) These grants are administered by the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. The funds promote improvements to urban areas and communities through the provision of forestry resources.
Other Public Grant Programs: In addition to the programs identified above, there are several additional programs that could benefit Alexandria's Open Space program. These include:
eral government to improve recreation facilities in urban areas.
The Virginia Land Endowment (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) The Virginia Land Endowment is an institutional grantor that uses its capital to encourage pollution prevention, open space conservation, and environmental education. In 2001, the endowment supported The Land Conservation Fund in Arlington, VA with a $100,000 matching grant.
The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust was originally established to promote open space preservation in Fairfax County. It has now expanded its geographical coverage and has undertaken projects in the inner and outer suburban counties and cities of Northern Virginia, including the City of Alexandria. Activities include providing grants to support partners in land acquisition and purchase of easements, advocacy and education.
Various Foundations (Applies to goals 1, 4, 5, 7, 9) There are a number of private foundations that directly and indirectly support objectives of this plan including education, land acquisition and support for general operational and administrative expenses. Some of these foundations are national in scope, but located in the region. This geographical proximity could be advantageous in working to secure funding. Examples of foundations with national coverage based in Washington, DC include: The Moriah Fund and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Examples of funds that focus exclusively or primarily on Virginia include the Virginia Environmental Endowment, and the Mark and Catherine Winkler Foundation. The latter is based in the City of Alexandria and actively supports land acquisition and O&M expense coverage. In addition, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which has been identified as a potential funding source, is involved in the acquisition of open space lands and conservation easements under its own name.
The implementation of Alexandria's Open Space Plan will result in the creation of a connected open space system that accomplishes several objectives. It maximizes the accessibility of the City's open spaces for all of its residents. In addition, it enhances and protects the City's significant existing open space assets, such as its waterfront, its stream valleys, and its institutional lands. And, through the creation of the Open Space Conservancy, it establishes a mechanism for adding to the City's open space assets as opportunities arise.
The provision of an outstanding open space system will serve Alexandria well, for a long time to come. It will attract new residents to the City, it will encourage those living here to remains, and it will illustrate how a dense and diverse
community can be tied together through its varied and beautiful open spaces.
Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development. Mount Vernon Avenue Urban Design Guidelines, October 16, 1993.
________________________. Summary of Small Area Plans. Adopted 1992.
Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 1978.
________________________. Bicycle Transportation and Multi-use Trail Master Plan, for Alexandria, Virginia, 1998.
________________________. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (not adopted), 1994.
American Forests. Regional Ecosystem Analysis Chesapeake Bay Region and the Baltimore-Washington Corridor: Calculating the Value of Nature. 1999.
Arendt, Randall G. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 1966.
Arlington County, Virginia. Open Space Master Plan. Adopted September 10 1994
Billingsley, Ken. “Let’s Talk Demographics,” Speech Presented to Agenda Alexandria, October 19, 1998.
Bleam, Gregg. The City as a Park. A Citizens’ Guide to Charlottesville Parks. Gregg Bleam Landscape Architects, 1998.
Cooper, Robertson & Partners, et al. Potomac Yards Urban Design Guidelines. March 12, 1999, reissued April 28, 1999. Amended by Alexandria City Council Sept. 8, 1999.
Crompton, John L. The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base. National Recreation and Park Assoc. Ashburn, VA, 2000.
________________________. “The Impact of Parks on Property Values,” Parks and Recreation Magazine. National Recreation and Park Association, January 2001.
________________________. “To Keep the Bills Down, should the Community Build Homes or Parks,” Parks and Recreation Magazine. National Recreation and Park Association, January 2001.
Fairfax County, Virginia. Policy Plan: The County Wide Policy Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Fairfax County, Virginia, 1990 , as amended 1997.
Flink, Charles A., and Robert M. Searns. Greenways. A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development. The Conservation Fund. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 1993.
Gaithersburg, Maryland. Parks, Recreation and Open Space for the 21st Century, 1999.
Garvin, Alexander. Gayle Berens. Urban Parks and Open Space. Urban Land Institute. Washington DC, 1997.
Harnik, Peter. Inside City Parks. Urban Land Institute. Washington D.C., 2000.
Historic Alexandria Foundation. Final report from the Task Force on Open Space Easements, June 18, 1987.
Jones Point Park Recommendation Chronicles, May 27, 1999.
Lerner, Steve, and William Poole. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. The Trust for Public Land, 1999.
Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure. Prepared by the Maryland Greenways Commission, August 2000. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Annapolis, Maryland.
Mertes, James D. Ph.D., James R. Hall, CLP. Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines National Recreation and Park Association and the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, 1996.
Land Trust Alliance. Land Banks (undated article).
Lawrence, Kathleen W. and Ronald L. Hedlund. Virginia Outdoors Plan, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Director, 1996.
National Capital Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan: Parks, Open Space, Natural Features Element. Draft for Commission Authorization to Circulate, August 15, 2000.
Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. Policy Plan. Adopted February 20, 1992.
Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc. The Virginia Greenways and Trails Toolbox. VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Trails Association. Richmond, VA, May 1999.
PKF Consulting. Draft Recreation Master Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, June, 1998.
Prince William County, Office of Planning. Comprehensive Plan, 1998, amended 2000.
____________________________. Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions, June 1999.
Recreation Facilities and Trails Map. Alexandria, Virginia: Alexandria Drafting Company, 1997.
Rhodeside & Harwell, Inc. and ERA. Stafford County Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Open Space, 1989.
Salem, Oregon. Comprehensive Park System Master Plan. April 1999.
Tibbetts, John. Open Space Conservation: Investing in Your Community’s Economic Health. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, 1998.
Virginia Beach, Virginia. Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan, 2000.
Water Quality Management Supplement. City of Alexandria Master Plan. Adopted January 13, 2001.
Washingtonian Magazine. “Who We Are,” April 2001.
Alexandria, Virginia. Recreation, Parks & Cultural Activities. Recreation Facilities and Parks Location Map. Last Modified: Wednesday, 09-Aug-2000. http://ci.alexandria.va.us/rpca/rpca_gi_location_map.html
Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Green Ribbon Open Space Committee.” March 2000. www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/commplan/greenribbon/pdfs/gr_ribb_report.pdf
Great Public Spaces, Great Community Places. http://www.pps.org/GPS_New/index.html
Hermosa Beach. “Open Space Zone.” No date given. www.hermosabch.org/1730.htm
National Association of Counties. Research Surveys, Parks Survey. Web site copyright 1999 by National Association of Counties. www.naco.org/counties/surveys/parks.index.cfm
The Trust for Public Land. “Federal Funding, ...”, dates vary. www.tpl.org/tier2_re2.cfm?&folder_id=191
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. “Greenways: Conserving Virginia’s Natural & Recreational Resources.” http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/greenway.htm
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. "Trails . . .Conserving Virginia’s Natural & Recreational Resources." http://www.dcr.state.va.us/prr/greenway.htm
Western Governors’ Association. "The Open Lands Initiative: Economic Benefits of Open Space," April 1998. www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/tpl/ecoben.htm
City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-01 | African American Heritage Park | 500 Holland Lane | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Regional | Public | 7.60 |
| 1-02 | Alexandria Schools Rowing Facility (Oronoco Bay Park) | 1 Madison Street | Active | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Educational Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.73 |
| 1-03 | "Alley Way" | Pitt St. to St. Asaph St. 200 South Block | Trails Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.31 |
| 1-04 | Armory Tot-Lot | 200 block of South Royal Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.20 |
| 1-05 | Charles Houston Community Center | 901 Wythe Street | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Public | 1.3 open space |
| 1-06 | Chetworth Park | 810 Chetworth Place | Active | Dog Park Recreational | Block | Public | 0.28 |
| 1-07 | City Property | First and Payne Streets | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 1.37 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-08 | Daingerfield Island Park | George Washington Memorial Parkway (1 Marina Drive) | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 130.03 |
| 1-9 | Dr. Oswald Durant Memorial Center | 1605 Cameron Street | Passive | Recreational Educational | Citywide | Public | 1.76 |
| 1-10 | Ford's Landing | 99 Franklin Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.59 |
| 1-11 | Founder's Park | 351 Union Street | Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 4.70 |
| 1-12 | George Washington Memorial Parkway | Northern Section between 1st Street and Four Mile Run | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Cultural/Historical | Regional | Public | 45.50 |
| 1-13 | Helen Miller & Bernard Hunter Park (formerly Fayette & Queen Park) | 224 North Fayette Street | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 0.32 |
| 1-14 | Interior Park | 1321 Oronoco Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-15 | Jefferson Houston School | 1501 Cameron Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Citywide | Public | 4.68 open space |
| 1-16 | Jones Point Park | 100 Jones Point Drive | Active Passive | Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 52.30 |
| 1-17 | King Street Gardens | 1806 King Street | Passive Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 0.15 |
| 1-18 | King Street Park | King Street at the Potomac River | Passive | Cultural/Historical Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Citywide | Public | 0.19 |
| 1-19 | Lee Center | 1108 Jefferson Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 4.10 |
| 1-20 | Lloyd House Garden | 220 North Washington Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Citywide | Public | less than 1.0 |
| 1-21 | Lyles-Crouch Open Space (adjacent School) | 530 South Saint Asaph Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 1.27 open space |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
| City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview |
|---|
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-22 | Market Square | 300 King Street | Passive | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Citywide | Public | 0.75 |
| 1-23 | Metro Linear Park | 1607 Suter Street (Buchanan to Braddock) | Passive<br>Trails | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 1.97 |
| 1-24 | Montgomery Park | 901 North Royal Street | Active | Dog Park<br>Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 2.00 |
| 1-25 | Nannie J. Lee Recreation Center and Pool | 1108 Jefferson Street | Active | Educational<br>Recreational<br>Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 10.00 |
| 1-26 | Old Cameron Run Channel | 2251 Mill Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area<br>Environmentally Sensitive | Neighborh | Public | 2.70 |
| 1-27 | Old Town Pool (includes Buchanan Street Park) | 1609 Cameron Street<br>(west side of Durrant Center) | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 2.51 |
| 1-28 | Oronoco Bay Park<br>(also contains Alexandria Schools Rowing Facility) | 701 North Lee Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive<br>Natural Resource Area<br>Recreational<br>Riverfront | Regional | Public | 4.50 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-29 | Pendelton Park | 1333 Pendelton Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 |
| 1-30 | Point Lumley | East End of Duke Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.15 |
| 1-31 | Portner Park | 1400 Portner Road | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 0.24 |
| 1-32 | Potomac Yards (City's open space component only) | Jefferson Davis Highway | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 70.0 |
| 1-33 | Powhatan Park | 1009 Douglas Street | Active | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 1.47 |
| 1-34 | "Rivergate" Park | 2 Montgomery Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Riverfront Cultural/Historic | Regional | Public | 1.97 |
| 1-35 | Roberdeau Park (includes Shipyard Park) | End of Wolfe and Wilkes Streets at Potomac River | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.86 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-36 | Tide Lock Park | Canal Center Plaza | Trails | Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 6.7 |
| 1-37 | Torpedo Plaza | End of King Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Riverfront Urban Plaza / Streetscape Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area | Regional | Public | 1.50 |
| 1-38 | Washington Way | 120 North Pitt Street | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.01 |
| 1-39 | Waterfront Park | 1 A Prince Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Regional | Public | 1.50 |
| 1-40 | West's Point (connected with Founder's Park) | 1 Oronoco Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Regional | Public | 0.07 |
| 1-41 | Wilkes Street Tunnel | Wilkes Street (between Royal and Fairfax Streets) | Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza/Streetscapes | Neighbor | Public | 0.21 |
| 1-42 | Windmill Hill Park (includes Potomac View Park and Old Town Yacht Basin) | 501 North Royal Street | Active | Recreational Cultural/Historical Environmentally Sensitive | Neighbor | Public | 3.48 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-43 | Wythe Street Plaza | 701 N. Fairfax Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 0.37 |
| 2-01 | Angel Park | 201 West Taylor Run Parkway | Active | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 10.34 |
| 2-02 | Beach Park (Maury School adjacent) | 201 Rucker Place | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 1.30 |
| 2-03 | Beverly Park | 620 North Overlook Drive | Passive | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 1.90 |
| 2-04 | Braddock Field (George Washington School adjacent) | 1005 Mount Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 6.6 |
| 2-05 | Braddock Road Dog Park | 5 East Braddock Road | Passive | Dog Park | Block | Public | 0.22 |
| 2-06 | Charles Barrett Open Space (Charles Barrett School adjacent) | 1115 Martha Custis Drive | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 4.87 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-07 | Charles W. Hill Park | 300-304 East Oxford Avenue | Passive | Dog Park | Neighbor | Public | 0.37 |
| 2-08 | Chinquapin Park and Recreation Center (TC Williams HS adjacent) | 3210 King Street | Active | Dog Park<br>Educational<br>Environmentally Sensitive<br>Natural Resource Area<br>Recreational | Citywide | Public | 22.80 open<br>space;<br>0.07 center |
| 2-09 | Cora Kelly School and Recreation Center (Four Mile Run noted separately) | 25 West Reed Street | Active | Recreational<br>Educational | Citywide | Public | 01.41 open<br>space |
| 2-10 | Elbert Triangle | 511 Four Mile Road | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways<br>Passive | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Neighbor | Public | 0.13 |
| 2-12 | Forest Park | 1099 Frances Hammond Parkway | Passive | Natural Resource Area<br>Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 15.9 |
| 2-13 | Four Mile Run Park (Cora Kelly School adjacent) | 3700 Commonwealth Avenue | Trails<br>Active | Dog Park<br>Environmentally Sensitive<br>Natural Resource Area<br>Recreational | Regional | Public | 55.90 |
| 2-14 | Gentry Park | Guthry Avenue and Mosby Street | Passive | Recreational<br>Streetscapes/Scenic<br>Roadways | Neighbor | Public | 0.21 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-15 | George Mason Open Space (George Mason School adjacent) | 2601 Cameron Mills Road | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 8.20 |
| 2-16 | George Washington Middle School | 1105 Mt. Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 12.90 |
| 2-17 | Goat Hill Park | 33 Kennedy Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 1.50 |
| 2-18 | Hillside Park | 264 Burgess Avenue | Passive | Dog Park | Neighborh | Public | 0.55 |
| 2-19 | Hooff's Run Park and Greenway | 18 A East Linden Street | Trails Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 2.40 |
| 2-20 | Hume Springs Park | 100 Dale Street | Passive | Dog Park Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.50 |
| 2-21 | Landover Park | 3301 Landover Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.80 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-22 | Lynhaven Gateway | Lynhaven and Wesmond Drives | Passive Streetscapes/Scenic Roadways | Recreational Urban Plaza/Streetscape | Block | Public | 0.05 |
| 2-23 | Lynhaven Park | 5 East Reed Avenue | Passive | Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 0.30 |
| 2-24 | Mac Arthur School (Forest Park noted separately) | 1101 Janney's Lane | Active | Educational | Neighborh | Public | 3.30 |
| 2-25 | Mason Avenue Mini Park | 10 East Monroe Avenue | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.30 |
| 2-26 | Maury School (Beach Park noted separately) | 600 Russell Road | Active | Educational | Neighborh | Public | 1.60 open space |
| 2-27 | Monticello Park | 320 Beverly Drive | Passive | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 6.20 |
| 2-28 | Mt. Jefferson Park and Greenway | 301 Hume Avenue | Trails | Dog Park Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 6.70 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-29 | Mt. Vernon School and Recreation Center (Colasanto Center noted separately) | 2601 Commonwealth Avenue | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Public | 5.87 open space |
| 2-30 | Nicholas Colasanto Center and Pool (Mt. Vernon School adjacent) | 2404 Mount Vernon Avenue | Active | Recreational Cultural/Historical | Citywide | Public | 0.20 |
| 2-31 | Robert Leider Park | 3002 Valley Drive | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 1.30 |
| 2-32 | Russell Open Space | 10 Russell Road | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Neighborh | Public | 0.30 | |
| 2-33 | Simpson Stadium Park | 426 East Monroe Avenue | Active | Recreational Dog Park | Citywide | Public | 13.70 |
| 2-34 | St. Asaph Park | 215 East Ida Avenue | Passive Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza / Streetscape | Neighborh | Public | 0.44 |
| 2-35 | Sunset Mini Park | 4 Sunset Drive | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.20 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-36 | T.C. Williams High School (Chinquapin Park noted separately) | 3300 King Street | Active | Educational | Citywide | Public | 15.90 open space |
| 2-37 | Taylor Run Park | Between East and West Taylor Run Parkways | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive | Block | Public | 10.40 |
| 2-38 | Timberbranch Parkway | Island dividing E. and W. Timberbranch Parkway | Passive | Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 5.96 |
| 2-39 | Timberland Park | access between #66-68 Kennedy Street | Passive | Dog Park Recreational | Block | Public | 0.25 |
| 2-40 | Union Station Historical Marker | 1900 King Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Public | n/a |
| 2-41 | Warwick Pool | 3301 Landover Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 0.25 open space |
| 2-42 | Woodbine Park | 1509 Woodbine Street | Passive | Recreational | Block | Public | 0.10 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-01 | 270 South Reynolds Street Open Space | 270 South Reynolds Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Block | Public | 1.0 |
| 3-02 | Armistead L. Booth Park/Samuel W. Tucker School | 5500 Edsall Road | Active | Recreational Environmentally Sensitive Educational | Neighborh | Public | 12.52 |
| 3-03 | Backlick Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Adjacent to Eisenhower Avenue | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 1.5 |
| 3-04 | Ben Brenman Park | 5000 block of Duke Street | Active | Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | 50.37 |
| 3-05 | Brookvalley Park (part of Holmes Run) | 5599 Holmes Run Parkway | Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 35.90 |
| 3-06 | Cameron Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Eisenhower Corridor | Trails Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 3.0 |
| 3-07 | Cameron Run Regional Park and Great Waves Water Park | 4001 Eisenhower Avenue | Active | Recreational Environmentally Sensitive | Regional | Public | 33.50 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-08 | Chambliss Park (John Adams School adjacent) | 2505 North Chambliss Street | Passive | Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 6.00 |
| 3-09 | Duke Street Dog Park | 5000 block of Duke St. East of Beatley Library | Passive | Dog Park | Citywide | Public | 1.41 |
| 3-10 | Clermont Nature Park | access from Clermont Drive | Passive | Natural Resource Area Environmentally Sensitive | Citywide | Public | 5.49 |
| 3-11 | Dora Kelley Nature Park and Buddie Ford Nature Center (William Ramsay School adjacent) | 1525 North Chambliss Street | Passive Trails | Educational Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 34.26 |
| 3-12 | Ewald Park and Pool | 4454 Duke Street | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Public | 4.00 |
| 3-13 | F.C. Hammond Middle School | 4646 Seminary Road | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Public | 21.50 open space |
| 3-14 | Fort Ward Park | 4401 West Braddock Road | Passive Active | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Educational Natural Resource Area Recreational | Regional | Public | 41.40 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-15 | Fort Williams Park | 501 Fort Williams Parkway | Passive Trails | Cultural/Historical Dog Park Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighbor | Public | 7.80 |
| 3-16 | Hensley Park | 4200 Eisenhower Avenue | Active | Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 14.80 |
| 3-17 | Holmes Run Scenic Easement | 311 North Pickett Street | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 2.80 |
| 3-18 | James Marx All Veterans Park (part of Holmes Run Parkway) | 311 North Pickett Street | Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Recreational Riverfront | Citywide | Public | 9.60 |
| 3-19 | James Mulligan Park | 3300 28th Street | Passive | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 3.50 |
| 3-20 | John Adams School and Recreation Center (Chambliss Park noted separately) | 5651 Rayburn Avenue | Active | Educational Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 5.35 open space |
| 3-21 | Lake Cook | 4001 Eisenhower Avenue | Passive | Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | 7.10 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-22 | Luckett Field | Duke Street and Quaker Lane | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 5.60 |
| 3-23 | Minnie Howard School & Field | 3801 West Braddock Road | Active | Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 9.00 |
| 3-24 | Patrick Henry School/ Park and Recreation Center | 4643 Taney Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 17.00 |
| 3-25 | Polk School and Open Space | 5000 Polk Avenue | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighbor | Public | 11.70 |
| 3-26 | Rynex Nature Area | 300 Rynex Drive | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area | Neighbor | Public | 8.50 |
| 3-27 | Stevenson Park | 300 Stultz Road | Active | Natural Resource Area Recreational | Neighbor | Public | 9.50 |
| 3-28 | Strawberry Run (includes Resource Protection Area) | Adjacent to Fort Williams Parkway | Passive Trails | Environmentally Sensitive Dog Park Natural Resource Area Recreational | Citywide | Public | approximately 1.0 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-29 | Taney Avenue Park | 4149 Taney Avenue | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 2.59 |
| 3-30 | Tarleton Park | 4420 A Vermont Avenue | Passive<br>Trails | Dog Park<br>Environmentally Sensitive<br>Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Public | 6.03 |
| 3-31 | William Ramsay School and Recreation Center<br>(Dora Kelley Park noted separately) | 5700 Sanger Avenue | Active | Educational<br>Recreational | Neighborh | Public | 18.30 |
| 4-01 | Alexandria Country Day School | 2400 Russell Road | Active | Educational<br>Recreational | Neighborh | Private with<br>Public Access | 3.89 |
| 4-02 | Alexandria Hospital | 4320 Seminary Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with<br>Public Access | 65.18 open<br>space;<br>4.22 buildings |
| 4-03 | Alexandria House Park | 400 Madison Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with<br>Public Access | 0.50 |
| 4-04 | Alexandria Water Company | 2223 Duke Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with no<br>Public Access | 10.02 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-05 | Bishop Ireton High School | 253 Cambridge Road | Active | Educational Recreational | Citywide | Private with no Public Access | 9.94 open space; 1.89 building |
| 4-06 | Carlyle Crescent Park | 2121 Jamieson Ave | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Dog Park | Block | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-07 | Carlyle Towers Open Space | 2121 Jamieson Ave | Streetscapes / Scenic Roadways | Urban Plaza/Streetscape | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-08 | Christ Church Yard | 121 North Columbus Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-09 | Episcopal High School and Virginia Theological Seminary | 1200 North Quaker Lane 4200 Braddock Road 3737/3630 Seminary Road | Active | Educational Natural Resource Area Recreational Cultural/Historical | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 190.34 |
| 4-10 | First Baptist Church | 2932 King Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 16.20 |
| 4-11 | George Washington Masonic National Memorial | 101 Callahan Drive | Passive | Cultural/Historical Urban Plaza / Streetscape Educational Recreational | Regional | Private with Public Access | 39.87 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-12 | Lee Fendall House Garden | 614 Oronoco Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Regional | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-13 | Park on Wythe and Payne | Wythe and Payne Streets | Passive | Recreational | Block | Private with no Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-14 | Presbyterian Meeting House Yard | 316 South Royal Street | Passive | Cultural/Historical Educational | Citywide | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-15 | Second Presbyterian Church | 1400 Janneys Lane | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Citywide | Private with Public Access | 7.70 |
| 4-16 | St. Martin de Porres Senior Center | 4650 Taney Avenue | Active | Recreational | Citywide | Private with Public Access | less than 1.0 |
| 4-17 | St. Mary's School | 400 Green Street | Active | Recreational Educational | Neighborh | Private with no Public Access | 1.63 |
| 4-18 | St. Stephens & St. Agnes School | 400 Fontaine Street 4401 W Braddock Road 1000 St Stephens Road | Active | Educational Recreational | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | 47.69 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
City of Alexandria | Open Space Classification Overview
| Ref. # | Park Name | Location | Primary Use | Secondary Characteristics | Service Area | Owner | Acreage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-19 | Temple Beth El | 3830 Seminary Road | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Neighborh | Private with Public Access | 3.12 |
| 4-20 | Trans Potomac / Canal Center Plaza | 1033 North Fairfax Street | Passive | Recreational Cultural/Historical | Neighborh | Private with no Public Access | 0.84 |
| 4-21 | Winkler Botanical Preserve | 5400 Roanoke Avenue | Passive | Environmentally Sensitive Natural Resource Area Educational Recreational | Regional | Private with Public Access | 42.0 |
| 4-22 | Woodbine Nursing Home | 2729 King Street | Passive | Natural Resource Area | Regional | Private with no Public Access | 5.31 |
Reference Number key: 1 - Planning District #1 2 - Planning District #2 3 - Planning District #3 4 - Significant Private Open Spaces
Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated October 2002 DRAFT
Meeting for Planning District #1 (April 16, 2001)
D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING
E. BIKE USE
F. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
G. DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPERS
H. MAINTENANCE
I. ADDITIONAL DESIRES
J. FAVORITE OPEN SPACES (When asked this Q.)
Meeting for Planning District #2 (April 23, 2001)
C. RIVERFRONTS, STREAMS, WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS
D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING
E. BIKE USE
F. ROLE OF THE CITY
G. DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENT
H. MAINTENANCE
I. ADDITIONAL DESIRES
J. FAVORITE OPEN SPACES (When asked Q.)
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA OPEN SPACE PLAN Meeting for Planning District #3 (May 2, 2001)
Public Comments
A. OPEN SPACE DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS
B. SPECIFIC PARCELS, AREAS AND PARKS
C. RIVERFRONTS, STREAMS, WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS
D. STREETSCAPES AND PARKING
E. BIKE USE
June 23, 2002