The wild flights of developer fancy are circling a new roost: the Washington Channel, that elongated pool of muddy water between the National War College and the Tidal Basin.

It’s being seen as a D.C. version of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, loaded with to-be-built attractions like an aquarium, a museum, tons of restaurants and, of course, “mixed use” and “destination,” the two charmed terms of development.

Unfortunately, the developers who are spinning their plans to the city’s Anacostia Waterfront Corp. seem to have forgotten one thing: Washington’s host of competitive (and free) attractions close by, which make new attractions simply another name at the bottom of a long list.

Those determined to compete with the Smithsonian museums, the Capitol, the monuments, the White House and the galleries risk the fate that befell the Washington City Museum at Mount Vernon Square: Tourists found neither the time, the interest nor the entrance fee to stop by.

Even the Corcoran, world-famous and esteemed as it is, struggled to make visitor numbers and had to shelve an expansion plan. Meanwhile new important attractions — like the Spy Museum, the Newseum, the World War II memorial and the Museum of the American Indian, to mention only the best-known, continue to crowd the field.

Not only do the famous and worthy museums of the Mall and elsewhere offer tourists a free ride, many are equipped with superb cafeterias, film shows, Metro access, Folklife Festivals, etc. etc.

Besides the obvious fact of competition for tourist attention and dollars, there’s another obstacle to the high-flown development of the Southwest Waterfront: the fact that two very favored enterprises, the Washington Marina and the Washington Fish Wharf, were locked into 30-year leases on their properties, thanks to the self-serving maneuvers of ex-Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), who lived on a yacht nearby.

The marina is friendly to development, but the often malodorous Fish Wharf, which has been entrenched for over 200 years on land owned by the federal government, will hardly fit into the upscale dreams of the developers. A whiff alone would keep most summer tourists at bay.

In fact, tourists who come here, usually for a few days at most, are already faced with a bewildering menu of choices and never enough time to do everything. A far better idea would be to increase the number of housing units for this unique piece of waterfront Washington.

FALLING DETAILS
Get ready for S.E. parking lot desert

The latest bait and switch about Nationals Stadium is unfolding before our eyes. It’s all about Washington’s obsession: Parking.

The Williams administration’s nut counter, Natwar Gandhi, now says it just may not be possible to build underground parking for the suburban masses who must attend the games if the stadium is to succeed financially.

Without underground parking, the “vision” of a new Southeast with shops, restaurants and apartments becomes concrete boxes — parking garages — and an unspecified desert of asphalt reminiscent of RFK.

And without the underground parking, a powerful argument for planting the stadium at Buzzard Point (instead of far less expensive acreage near RFK) — the “developability” factor — becomes so much hot air. Worse, Nationals owner Ted Lerner favors aboveground parking because it’s cheaper to build. What does he care that the city will receive nothing from the businesses that could have been there?

The sad part is that this latest impasse was so predictable, right from the first aura of desperation, the scramble to get a “deal,” the confusion over the design, the legal battles over eminent domain, the ironclad deadline. All the important details were left up in the air, and now they are falling to ground with a resounding thud.

What is the likely outcome? Mayor Anthony Williams (D) has already suggested a compromise, allowing some garages. Lerner will push for more suburban-type parking — this is what he knows — and if the past is any example the city will end up paying both for the parking garages and later for underground parking, which will become necessary to allow development around the stadium.

Business as usual in Washington is to delay making decisions until it is almost too late; then enter a compromise that placates no one, then pay an exorbitant amount of money to paper the whole mess over.

DOWNTOWN RISING
D.C. needs to grow up

Sooner or later, downtown D.C. is going to need a skyscraper.

Or 10.

It’s becoming more and more obvious that downtown D.C., to cope with its economic revival, increased street life and thousands of new urbanites flocking to handsome condos, will need bigger buildings to house places of employment, retail and services.

It’s good to remember that the dictum against height in Washington was laid down before elevators were commonplace, in 1899. Its noble object was to be sure that the capitoline campus did not become an island amid canyonlike skyscrapers, such as those dwarfing Gracie Mansion and other historic buildings in downtown New York.

But since then the city has split in two — contrary to Pierre L’Enfant’s plan that the commercial center of town would stretch from the Capitol to what’s now Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. There’s now the CBD, or central business district, and there’s Capitol Hill. The Mall and the great axis of Mount Vernon Square clearly mark the divide. It’s difficult to see how New York-style towers in the CBD would infringe on the founders’ grand plan.

In fact, an artistic argument should be made that towers downtown and marble monuments cresting Capitol Hill would make a satisfactory contrast, accentuating the beauty of both.

For an example one need only look across the river at Rosslyn, where a variety of graceful towers have risen to look down on downtown.

Few would argue that beauty now lies in the kind of downtown architecture less height has forced on the city. Unable to go up, the blocks have become inhabited with barely distinguished square buildings, most of the new ones trying for nobility with stone decorative motifs, squat towers, domes, etc., but achieving only some kind of middle-class pomposity — they look like overweight lawyers.

The Washington Post’s Mike Grunwald made this point in a well-thought Outlook piece July 2; he also made the point that change may be inevitable but won’t come soon. That’s because property owners have less competition if every developer is limited to 10 stories.

The pressure will come only from business interests, when rents, already among the highest in the nation, combine with the ever-worsening commuting situation to force thoughts of height on planners. After all, the federal government is not going to move out to Springfield, Va.

Metro

• Big changes coming at The Washington Post: top execs have decided to chuck popular sections on health, home and food and replace them with something aimed at a “younger demographic,” presumably an attempt to stem the circulation slide, the incursion of Internet news. But will the Post keep publishing the self-defeating free subway Express? ...

• Barry Watch: Former Mayor Marion Barry (D) is pushing a financial idea to help the budget squeeze inevitable as Nationals Stadium gets built. Barry, the Ward 8 councilman, will promise to support underground parking costs if the city will borrow $100 million at 10 percent interest from the Gates Group of Cincinnati; that’s only twice as much as Wall Street money might cost. ...

• Energetic Ward 6 candidate Will Cobb, making his first stab at Hill elective politics, has tripped over details; a staff member failed to file his nominating petition with the Board of Elections and Ethics by a July 5 deadline, which means his name cannot be on the Democratic ballot. Cobb plans to attempt to run as an independent, he told The Hill. ...

• Has mayoral candidate Vincent Orange (D-Ward 5) been pulling political levers for Dr. Peter Shin, controversial owner of old Capitol Hill Hospital (now Medlink, proposed for conversion to residences) as a result of Shin’s generous campaign support to the tune of $10,000? Orange says the two are old friends and calls the implications a “smear,” but Hill eyebrows are raised for one reason: Orange represents Ward 5, not Ward 6, where the hospital property lies. ...

• As the deadline for nominating petitions for the Democratic primary in September passed July 5, mayoral contender Councilman Adrian Fenty (D-Ward 4) submitted over 21,000, while his chief rival, council Chairwoman Linda Cropp (D), posted only 15,000. The gross numbers mean little (only about 2,000 are required) unless you remember the 2002 signature-challenge fiasco that greatly embarrassed Mayor Anthony Williams (D). Neither front-runner this year is taking chances.