To the Editor:
Anchoring is a well-established, effective negotiating technique. The seller sets the first price high or the buyer sets the first offer low. Negotiations proceed around this first anchor price and quickly pass from a discussion of true value to a process of gamesmanship, as one party seeks to achieve marginal gain over the other. The person who makes the first offer typically sets the anchor and holds influence.
After negotiations finish, there is relatively little movement away from where the “anchor” was first set.
After witnessing the most recent Board of Architectural Review discussions on plans for the Robinson Terminal South development, I am convinced that “anchoring” forms the basis of public engagement in Alexandria — from the city staff, through the developers, to the citizens. Put a “low ball” offer before the public, first and foremost. How else can one explain the startling, contemporary design presented by EYA, the builder on this site?
From the bland façade of townhomes along Union street, through the barely updated garden apartment replicas along Wolfe street, to the monolithic glass and metal “European modern” condos on the river, this offering can only be this first “low ball” offer to anchor subsequent discussions from anticipated citizen outrage to come.
The plan has little to do with design and all to do with negotiations – in this case, negotiations for top price of water views and maximum tax revenue for the city. Keep the citizens appeased with a dull brick face on Union, but strive for transparent glass blocks to attract the world.
The BAR was appalled. Three of five board members were straightforward in their alarm and rejection. Two others were more circumspect in registering clear concern. After all, the BAR’s guidance to the developers had been clear, as stated on page 4 in the report. “At its most basic meaning, a compatible new building is one that can co-exist with historic buildings in harmony.”
To the BAR’s credit, they all but stated the builders and architects must start over.
But, they won’t. The anchor has been set. We can expect to see discussion move quickly to window design and building materials. The appropriateness of the scale, the inferiority of the vision, and the clanging presence of this commercially derived design will only change at the margin.
That is unless citizens strongly reject this anchoring approach that so commonly characterizes dialog between public and commercial entities in our city, facilitated by city staff. It was staff, after all, who gave green light to this flawed concept in the historic district, saying in guidance on page 10 of the city’s report, “In concept, staff strongly supports the general design direction for a large-scale, transparent, contemporary building constructed of timeless materials.”
Citizens must demand more very early, or continue to expect less, in the end, on our waterfront and in our city. Our “anchor” is our history, the structure and form of our streets and residences, and the scale and beauty of our diverse neighborhoods.
Negotiations should start from this point, not from poorly formed precedents imported from elsewhere to lower expectations and divert our discussions.
Bob Wood, Alexandria