So much for "vibrant" --boring apt. building architecture going up right and left on the Avenues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

The setbacks, legally known as the building restriction line, are exactly the same on both avenues.

And there is no proposal to change them on either avenue.

So the person on here referencing it has no idea what they are even talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

The setbacks, legally known as the building restriction line, are exactly the same on both avenues.

And there is no proposal to change them on either avenue.

So the person on here referencing it has no idea what they are even talking about.

More trope from the development industry and their MAGA lobbyists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

The setbacks, legally known as the building restriction line, are exactly the same on both avenues.

And there is no proposal to change them on either avenue.

So the person on here referencing it has no idea what they are even talking about.

More trope from the development industry and their MAGA lobbyists.

Fine - rather than slinging unhinged insults from Ordway street why don't you cite where in either plan there is a proposal to modify the building restriction line on either avenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

Does anyone know what's going on with the Macklin development on Connecticut? Work seems to have stopped. Did the developer go bankrupt or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

It's way better than that cumbling pos that was 4000 wisconsin previously.

[Anonymous]

They're so pessimistic about rentals that they're using half of it as a "temporary hotel."

[Anonymous]

8 pages in, I'm convinced that 50 years from now most of Ward 3 will have really lost its cachet. I agree that the new architecture is unimaginative, but people fail to realize that it is so precisely because of all the NIMBYism, pushback about even minor changes, etc. Developments in other parts of the city just feel much more modern and interesting because developers know their investment in an idea is more likely to come to fruition without fighting frivolous lawsuits or other stalling tactics. Upper northwest will increasingly just look worse in comparison, and eventually people will realize it's no longer worth the premium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're so pessimistic about rentals that they're using half of it as a "temporary hotel."

Like Airbnb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8 pages in, I'm convinced that 50 years from now most of Ward 3 will have really lost its cachet. I agree that the new architecture is unimaginative, but people fail to realize that it is so precisely because of all the NIMBYism, pushback about even minor changes, etc. Developments in other parts of the city just feel much more modern and interesting because developers know their investment in an idea is more likely to come to fruition without fighting frivolous lawsuits or other stalling tactics. Upper northwest will increasingly just look worse in comparison, and eventually people will realize it's no longer worth the premium.

The premium for Upper Northwest is its tree filled neighborhoods and schools. Mess with either of those two things and the magic dies.

People move up there to start a family and settle down. They're not looking for the vibrant nightlife. They like that it gets dark at night.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. People are not flocking to the Navy Yard to raise families.

[Anonymous]

The building that will replace the Mazza Gallery is designed by a very trendy European architecture firm. So it will look nice if you like that. Should be quality in terms of materials and construction.

Nearby, downtown Bethesda has some stunning architecture. And along Connecticut Ave in Chevy Chase Lake, adjacent to the wildly anticipated Purple Line station, a series of apartment buildings were just designed and built in an early 20th century style that recalls the grand apartment buildings along Connecticut Ave north of Rock Creek Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same stuff is going up all over. I am beginning to fear that all these cookie cutter apartment buildings will age about as well as the 80's downtown office or colonial revival fads. It really seems like we're at the end of a cycle.

I am just shocked by how boring City Ridge is. Yes, pool on the top yadda yadda--but the cladding and dark brick. Ew.

I do not buy at all that the height limit is why boring architecture. There is majestic architecture worldwide that is lower.

DP. Okay but it is the height limit. Height limits mean being a box to maximize return. The more restrictions the worst it gets. Look at the four seasons in Georgetown.

In other words, it is greed, not the height limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8 pages in, I'm convinced that 50 years from now most of Ward 3 will have really lost its cachet. I agree that the new architecture is unimaginative, but people fail to realize that it is so precisely because of all the NIMBYism, pushback about even minor changes, etc. Developments in other parts of the city just feel much more modern and interesting because developers know their investment in an idea is more likely to come to fruition without fighting frivolous lawsuits or other stalling tactics. Upper northwest will increasingly just look worse in comparison, and eventually people will realize it's no longer worth the premium.

This is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8 pages in, I'm convinced that 50 years from now most of Ward 3 will have really lost its cachet. I agree that the new architecture is unimaginative, but people fail to realize that it is so precisely because of all the NIMBYism, pushback about even minor changes, etc. Developments in other parts of the city just feel much more modern and interesting because developers know their investment in an idea is more likely to come to fruition without fighting frivolous lawsuits or other stalling tactics. Upper northwest will increasingly just look worse in comparison, and eventually people will realize it's no longer worth the premium.

So they should just lie back and enjoy it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The building that will replace the Mazza Gallery is designed by a very trendy European architecture firm. So it will look nice if you like that. Should be quality in terms of materials and construction.

Nearby, downtown Bethesda has some stunning architecture. And along Connecticut Ave in Chevy Chase Lake, adjacent to the wildly anticipated Purple Line station, a series of apartment buildings were just designed and built in an early 20th century style that recalls the grand apartment buildings along Connecticut Ave north of Rock Creek Park.

It’s a 5 over 1, stick on concrete base. No different than anything else.