Hope for the Waterfront at Last?

Although it's not part of the current plan, designers hope that eventually a grand staircase will sweep down from the Kennedy Center to the waterfront parkway, connecting the building to a lamp-lighted boulevard.

"Washington is a river city, and that's something we don't always get the chance to participate in," said Thomas Luebke, secretary of the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts, which has reviewed the project a number of times over the years. "It would be great to get a very nice promenade, to be able to walk all the way down our riverfront."

The arts commission has jurisdiction over the design and aesthetics of federal projects in the city and has arbitrated some of the most bitter debates surrounding the design of the park. Last year, when some residents recoiled at sculptures resembling masts and sails proposed for the riverfront overlook, calling them "kitschy," the arts commission heard the debate, then soberly suggested "that the Park Service consider eliminating them as part of an overall design simplification."

Simplification has been a desire for some in other areas, too.

"I have felt all along that it was overdesigned. The Park Service hired a fancy firm in Philadelphia, and that was a big mistake," said Robert Norris, one of the activists who has voiced opposition to design elements of the park as well as the placement of the boathouse. "There were so many delays because they kept trying to push something over-designed and phony on a place that didn't want it."

The park was first proposed in the 1970s. Plans a decade earlier for a freeway crossing the river on a new Three Sisters Bridge, then following the shoreline to connect with the existing Whitehurst Freeway, had been scrapped, freeing up the land. But the park plan wasn't approved by the D.C. Council until 1985.

That approval did little for progress, because although the National Park Service wanted to create the park, the District owned the land. District leaders refused to transfer the land to the federal government until it made repairs to the Whitehurst Freeway, which was already more than 40 years old at the time and in dire need of refurbishing.

Meanwhile, controversy surrounded Washington Harbour, a $200 million shopping, office, residential and dining complex that was underway. Community activists, residents and architects skeptical of Arthur Cotton Moore's industrial baroque design were fighting the project. But many people now acknowledge that two decades later, it's the only thing on the waterfront that works.

It took almost another decade for progress on the park to be made. While Washington Harbour was being built, the rest of the Georgetown waterfront was home to a Department of Public Works storage facility for road salt and hosted occasional reggae or barbecue festivals.

The land was finally transferred to the Park Service in 1998.

Many supporters declared victory.

The Georgetown Waterfront Park Commission began raising money to add about $11 million in private funds to the $5 million in federal funds that the Park Service got for the project. Because of severe budget cuts to the National Park system, many parks across the country have formed public/private partnerships like the Georgetown commission.

"We knew that being in Georgetown, honestly, hurt us. There's a perception that it's a local park and the people who live there can afford it," Satterthwaite said.

And when there were no plans for playgrounds, basketball courts or baseball fields, when it was clear that it would be a "passive" park rather than one that would draw people for activities, that reinforced the perception that it was to be a refined, elegant park for those who live in exclusive Georgetown.

"The idea was to keep this passive, with the focus on the river and river activities," Satterthwaite said.

There were at least 50 public meetings about the park, and all kinds of interests chimed in, said Jonda McFarlane, a former advisory neighborhood commissioner who has worked on the waterfront park project for almost a decade.

What caught many planners by surprise was a recent surge in the popularity of rowing, and how that will affect the future of the waterfront. "When we began, in the 1960s and 1970s, there was not the interest in rowing," Satterthwaite said. "But since then, there has been an explosion. There are at least 900 rowers on the river now."

But there is vehement opposition to the boathouse from folks who don't want more waterfront construction, especially a structure that has a footprint of just over 18,000 square feet.

McFarlane said she doesn't think the boathouse will scar the area near Key Bridge that is designated "boathouse row."

"I walk across Key Bridge every day. And one of the things that occurred to me, as you look at that vast expanse along the river: The kind of structure that is proposed is really a blip on the screen," she said.

But Norris said the boathouse could easily be moved to the end of 34th Street, rather than farther west, where it would abut the C&O Canal National Historical Park. He also is frustrated by a perception that the opinions of those who don't live in Georgetown aren't seriously considered.

"Certainly, there are a lot of well-meaning people in Georgetown, but this is going to be their little park," said Norris, who lives in Foxhall. "They hold meetings in Georgetown, the public doesn't know about them, they make all the decisions."

The Park Service, though equally frustrated with years of delay, said the long evolution of this project has had some benefits. Thanks to advances in technology, a hard-edged shoreline will now be soft and natural-looking. And the boathouse can accommodate the changing ways in which Washingtonians play.

"We believe this has been a evolutionary process and certainly not one that was conceived of 20 years ago," said Park Service spokesman Bill Line. "When all is said and done, Georgetown Waterfront Park will be a place that the public will wholeheartedly embrace, a new and wonderful addition to Washington."