Getting the GDS mojo back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you wouldn't hear it in those contexts (or from teachers). Fundraising, campus consolidation, HS course offerings, discipline, extra-curriculars, and admissions are the contexts in which I've heard parents and administrators bring Sidwell up.

Campus consolidation - come on. Many schools on one campus were mentioned - Maret, NCS, Sidwell, StA. Please.

GDS's consolidation was originally touted as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Sidwell specifically. Obviously, it wouldn't have given us an edge over Maret or the Cathedral Schools, each of which already had a single campus (or close to it). Nor did anyone claim that GDS had been losing students to Maret or STA/NCS over our split campus set-up. And no one mentioned WIS as a (two campus) school GDS would compete more successfully with if it consolidated. It really was all about Sidwell for some advocates. Sounds foolish now because Sidwell will consolidate faster and cheaper, with much less disruption and much more space than GDS will -- but that was one of the big selling points for the project at the time the land sales wereammpunced.

There is really not a lot of overlap b/t GDS and WIS.....

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

+1

The time should be spent making sure whatever is built is great, not fighting it. At some point, these areas will get redeveloped. Better to have great than 'meh"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you wouldn't hear it in those contexts (or from teachers). Fundraising, campus consolidation, HS course offerings, discipline, extra-curriculars, and admissions are the contexts in which I've heard parents and administrators bring Sidwell up.

Campus consolidation - come on. Many schools on one campus were mentioned - Maret, NCS, Sidwell, StA. Please.

GDS's consolidation was originally touted as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Sidwell specifically. Obviously, it wouldn't have given us an edge over Maret or the Cathedral Schools, each of which already had a single campus (or close to it). Nor did anyone claim that GDS had been losing students to Maret or STA/NCS over our split campus set-up. And no one mentioned WIS as a (two campus) school GDS would compete more successfully with if it consolidated. It really was all about Sidwell for some advocates. Sounds foolish now because Sidwell will consolidate faster and cheaper, with much less disruption and much more space than GDS will -- but that was one of the big selling points for the project at the time the land sales wereammpunced.

There is really not a lot of overlap b/t GDS and WIS.....

In other words, GDS doesn't see WIS as a competitor school. By contrast, it does see Sidwell as a competitor school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you wouldn't hear it in those contexts (or from teachers). Fundraising, campus consolidation, HS course offerings, discipline, extra-curriculars, and admissions are the contexts in which I've heard parents and administrators bring Sidwell up.

Campus consolidation - come on. Many schools on one campus were mentioned - Maret, NCS, Sidwell, StA. Please.

GDS's consolidation was originally touted as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Sidwell specifically. Obviously, it wouldn't have given us an edge over Maret or the Cathedral Schools, each of which already had a single campus (or close to it). Nor did anyone claim that GDS had been losing students to Maret or STA/NCS over our split campus set-up. And no one mentioned WIS as a (two campus) school GDS would compete more successfully with if it consolidated. It really was all about Sidwell for some advocates. Sounds foolish now because Sidwell will consolidate faster and cheaper, with much less disruption and much more space than GDS will -- but that was one of the big selling points for the project at the time the land sales wereammpunced.

I attended three meetings on campus consolidation and no one ever indicated it was a horse race. Nearly every discussion revolved around parents' preference for kids to be on one campus.

GDS is half the age of most of the upper NW privates. It bought what it could afford.

GDS paid twice the assessed value of the land, bought land it apparently did not intend to use for school facilities, took on substantial debt to do so, and did so without a commitment from a development partner. GDS is paying all the land assembly, permitting, and predevelopment costs for a commercial project. In short, it got suckered into spending much more than it could afford. Greed and gullibility -- not frugality or financial constraints -- are the factors that drove the school's decisionmaking in this instance.

[Anonymous]

How do you know what GDs is paying for or how? You seem to be making a lot of ASSumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

+1

The time should be spent making sure whatever is built is great, not fighting it. At some point, these areas will get redeveloped. Better to have great than 'meh"

Well put, Mr. Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you wouldn't hear it in those contexts (or from teachers). Fundraising, campus consolidation, HS course offerings, discipline, extra-curriculars, and admissions are the contexts in which I've heard parents and administrators bring Sidwell up.

Campus consolidation - come on. Many schools on one campus were mentioned - Maret, NCS, Sidwell, StA. Please.

GDS's consolidation was originally touted as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Sidwell specifically. Obviously, it wouldn't have given us an edge over Maret or the Cathedral Schools, each of which already had a single campus (or close to it). Nor did anyone claim that GDS had been losing students to Maret or STA/NCS over our split campus set-up. And no one mentioned WIS as a (two campus) school GDS would compete more successfully with if it consolidated. It really was all about Sidwell for some advocates. Sounds foolish now because Sidwell will consolidate faster and cheaper, with much less disruption and much more space than GDS will -- but that was one of the big selling points for the project at the time the land sales wereammpunced.

I attended three meetings on campus consolidation and no one ever indicated it was a horse race. Nearly every discussion revolved around parents' preference for kids to be on one campus.

GDS is half the age of most of the upper NW privates. It bought what it could afford.

GDS paid twice the assessed value of the land, bought land it apparently did not intend to use for school facilities, took on substantial debt to do so, and did so without a commitment from a development partner. GDS is paying all the land assembly, permitting, and predevelopment costs for a commercial project. In short, it got suckered into spending much more than it could afford. Greed and gullibility -- not frugality or financial constraints -- are the factors that drove the school's decisionmaking in this instance.

More like the team of arses than the team of aces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

The project actually sailed through the DC government and zoning board thanks to the judicious salting around of contributions by the sponsors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since when is a PUD illegal?

When it requires a map amendment so as not to violate zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

I don't disagree w/ the characterization of cathedral commonplace. BUT. Can you cite one, single all-new-from-the-ground-up LIVE ! WORK ! PLAY! goddamit! development in the past 6-7 years that isn't meh?

Not talking about a one-building infill thingy, so don't cite some one-off address in Shaw. That's different, and that's organic. I'm talking about any of the 50 instant-towne-centres that have sprung up in MoCo or virginia or even DC -- see, e.g., Rhode Island Row or that soul-lifting stuff near Ft. Totten or the Costco nonsense.

All of it is dreck, and all of it comes from the same brainchild of developer + freshly minted planning graduate.

[Anonymous]

True. A number of these "mixed use town centers" appear as if the developer bought the plans on the Internet to save a few bucks. Meh dreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

The project actually sailed through the DC government and zoning board thanks to the judicious salting around of contributions by the sponsors.

Did you just move to town? The land was idle for nearly ten years because of the Cleveln Park Cirizens Association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't get is that, regardless of who owns it, the old Volvo dealership building is coming down and the big parking lot will be developed. It's ridiculous to think that a piece of vacant land along a major thoroughfare is going to sit there undeveloped, even if the parking lot is beloved by the neighborhood. Is the goal of the neighbors to make the zoning process on the volvo lot so onerous that GDS drops its plan? And if that happens, what do you think will happen next? Won't it sell the land to a major developer that will have even bigger plans for it, and not give a hoot about the neighbors? And likely be willing to play whatever awful game developers play to get things approved. Am I missing something?

See Cleveland Park - they fought it under the fig lead of wanting an "historically accurate" Giant and ended up with Cathedral Commons.

The most uninspired, generic, "meh" town center on the planet.

Exactly. They spent so much time to obstructing the development that they ended up with "meh."

I don't disagree w/ the characterization of cathedral commonplace. BUT. Can you cite one, single all-new-from-the-ground-up LIVE ! WORK ! PLAY! goddamit! development in the past 6-7 years that isn't meh?

Not talking about a one-building infill thingy, so don't cite some one-off address in Shaw. That's different, and that's organic. I'm talking about any of the 50 instant-towne-centres that have sprung up in MoCo or virginia or even DC -- see, e.g., Rhode Island Row or that soul-lifting stuff near Ft. Totten or the Costco nonsense.

All of it is dreck, and all of it comes from the same brainchild of developer + freshly minted planning graduate.

It didn't have to go that route. But neighbors blocked a renovated Giant in the early aughts. So this is what they got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you wouldn't hear it in those contexts (or from teachers). Fundraising, campus consolidation, HS course offerings, discipline, extra-curriculars, and admissions are the contexts in which I've heard parents and administrators bring Sidwell up.

Campus consolidation - come on. Many schools on one campus were mentioned - Maret, NCS, Sidwell, StA. Please.

GDS's consolidation was originally touted as a way to gain a competitive advantage over Sidwell specifically. Obviously, it wouldn't have given us an edge over Maret or the Cathedral Schools, each of which already had a single campus (or close to it). Nor did anyone claim that GDS had been losing students to Maret or STA/NCS over our split campus set-up. And no one mentioned WIS as a (two campus) school GDS would compete more successfully with if it consolidated. It really was all about Sidwell for some advocates. Sounds foolish now because Sidwell will consolidate faster and cheaper, with much less disruption and much more space than GDS will -- but that was one of the big selling points for the project at the time the land sales wereammpunced.

I attended three meetings on campus consolidation and no one ever indicated it was a horse race. Nearly every discussion revolved around parents' preference for kids to be on one campus.

GDS is half the age of most of the upper NW privates. It bought what it could afford.

GDS paid twice the assessed value of the land, bought land it apparently did not intend to use for school facilities, took on substantial debt to do so, and did so without a commitment from a development partner. GDS is paying all the land assembly, permitting, and predevelopment costs for a commercial project. In short, it got suckered into spending much more than it could afford. Greed and gullibility -- not frugality or financial constraints -- are the factors that drove the school's decisionmaking in this instance.

Is this really true? According to whom? Zillow?