A Harris Teeter In the Works For McMillan Site

• April 29, 2013
• 6 Comments

by Shilpi Paul

A Harris Teeter may be in the works for the new McMillan Sand Filtration site.

On Saturday, Vision McMillan Partners (VMP) held an open house in Bloomingdale to discuss the residential, park, and commercial plans for the redevelopment of the site, and it was revealed that the retail team is in talks with Harris Teeter to sign on as the “large grocery” in the middle of the site.

The developers also said that they hope to create a “third place” on the North Court, with space for a farmer’s market, arts and crafts fairs, street performers, and the like. A retail corridor lines the court, with restaurants, a pharmacy, and other neighborhood-serving options, in addition to a BikeShare stand and car2go spaces. There will also be two structures — creating from existing regulator houses on the site — that will host “pop-up” retailers on short-term leases.

We also learned more about one of the smaller planned green spaces, pictured above; the developers imagine using the underground cells and existing circular holes to send light up into the grassy space, an artistic interpretation of the former usage.

Roughly 300 multi-family units are planned above the grocery store. Hopefully, said one representative, they could be occupied by employees working in the health services office buildings on the northern end of the site.

Though the Historic Preservation Review Board has been discussing the project, they didn’t issue any specific directives to the developers regarding the plans at a meeting this past Thursday. VMP’s Anne Corbett told UrbanTurf that they will be meeting with the Historic Preservation Office next week to hear more specific feedback. As usual, expect updates as we learn more about the project. The VMP tells us that they hope to be under construction by 2014, and to deliver the first units and the park in 2016 and the grocery in 2017.

Similar Posts:

• Towers and Fountains: Detailed Renderings of McMillan’s Planned Park
• The Buildings: More Renderings Released Of McMillan Redevelopment

This article originally published at http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/harris_teeter_to_mcmillan_a_few_updates_to_the_redevelopment_plan/6992

6 Comments

1. Anonymous said at 10:57 pm on Monday April 29, 2013:
   This article greatly plays down the review of the Historic Preservation Review Board, which held a hearing on the VMP plan a few days ago. Every member of the Board politely, yet pointedly, criticized the plan for its significant destruction of the historic fabric of the site, mediocre architecture more appropriate for "Tyson's Corner or Rosslyn," turning of the few remaining historic structures into "tombstones of what was there," and on and on. They requested a long list of revisions. You can hear it yourself at: http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSL.aspx?indexPointSKU=0enrXEJP8odZMDqrKQxXfQ== This site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and belongs to all of the residents of the District as well as its visitors. Including a grocery store is fine. Doing so in a way that destroys the historic integrity of the site, which this plan does, is not.

1. Anonymous2 said at 11:12 pm on Monday April 29, 2013:
   I agree with Anonymous above. It is a beautiful historic site that must be preserved while allowing development that respects the integrity of the site.

1. AnonymouscallingoutAnonymous1and2 said at 9:35 pm on Tuesday April 30, 2013:
   It's a beautiful historic site that is closed off to the public because of morons like the two anonymous commenters. Think of all the great things that can be done in that space and be brought to the community. ANYTHING that is put there is better than what it is now: a drain on taxpayers.

1. Anon 4 said at 10:20 pm on Tuesday April 30, 2013:
   Unfortunately Anon 3 is right; we're either going to get "Tyson's Lite" or a fenced-off property. At this point, I'm resigned to Tyson's Lite. I just want something. They wore me down. Large sigh and groan.

1. wsed said at 10:54 pm on Tuesday April 30, 2013:
   i don't believe anything is better. i'd prefer it to be an accesible park, but i like the beauty of the space now. to say we can't enjoy greenspace because it's fenced off is nuts. i can still see it. and i can breathe the oxygen it creates.

1. eponymous said at 2:17 pm on Wednesday May 22, 2013:
   Anon 1 and 2 are right.I support development at the site - high-density development. But that doesn't mean that it needs to be ugly or generic. Other cities manage to build mid-rise buildings that are attractive - Barcelona is a great example. Given how much the developers will make off of this site, we can and should put their feet to the fire and make them come up with something that the public can take pride in - after all we'll be looking at it for the next 100+ years.