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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Developers build to current code. They don’t build with thick masonry walls any longer. You want that, you’ll have to live in Europe or Asia. That said, the Chevy Chase Lake apartments next to the anticipated Purple Line stop do look like the grand old ones in Woodley Park. I believe that’s what OP cares about. The looks, and not the engineering or underlying structure that no one sees.

[Anonymous]

Developers put up really cheap looking stuff, including brick veneer and spray-on stucco-lite. DC seems to allow this now, even in historic districts. It's generic ugliness. Many budget-bracket hotels near airports are more attractive.

[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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

[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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

I'm not pleased by its aesthetics either. It's very dark and boxy. I'm concerned what the replacement for Mazza will look like. I liked the old, marble faced nall building. It was austere, but elegant.

[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:

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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

I'm not pleased by its aesthetics either. It's very dark and boxy. I'm concerned what the replacement for Mazza will look like. I liked the old, marble faced nall building. It was austere, but elegant.

It will look like more of the same generic mixed use stuff. It's as if all of the developers save money by buying essentially the same design plans off the internet with minimal customization.

[Anonymous]

The Mazza Galerie replacement will look phenomenal. It is stick built over concrete—that’s how they build these days. But the brick is not thin veneer but full size brick for the exterior walls. It will look like the architect’s other projects in Denmark. The people
commenting here will be most pleased with the result.

[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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

This is what the push for “density” gets you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I walk by the squat + boxy City Ridge development going up next to Fannie Mae (not to be confused with the weird, but cool triangle building), I think "City Ridge, the 90s are calling!" They want their "urban loft living" back!!!

I have no doubt it will have nice amenities, but whoever chose the design did a huge disservice to such a beautiful, open avenue. Is this Crystal City in the 90s??

Then there's the absurd Scandi looking (in the not good way) building with boxy green metal trim and a small, unappealing entry way across from Cactus that just got built. It totally ruins the pretty corner view that curves to the Cathedral.

And Mazza sits in ruins. As far as I can tell, they didn't even try to reclaim/reuse the beautiful stone facing. Just smashed it to bits. Such waste. Mazza was weird, but at least architecturally interesting. I shudder to think what will go up. I'm guessing more brick and iron "90s Urban Loft Living"?

God forbid they raise building height. Would we just get taller versions of this dreck?
 

The building you are complaing about is not City Ridge, but rather Upton Place, which is mostly a reskinning of an existing building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I walk by the squat + boxy City Ridge development going up next to Fannie Mae (not to be confused with the weird, but cool triangle building), I think "City Ridge, the 90s are calling!" They want their "urban loft living" back!!!

I have no doubt it will have nice amenities, but whoever chose the design did a huge disservice to such a beautiful, open avenue. Is this Crystal City in the 90s??

Then there's the absurd Scandi looking (in the not good way) building with boxy green metal trim and a small, unappealing entry way across from Cactus that just got built. It totally ruins the pretty corner view that curves to the Cathedral.

And Mazza sits in ruins. As far as I can tell, they didn't even try to reclaim/reuse the beautiful stone facing. Just smashed it to bits. Such waste. Mazza was weird, but at least architecturally interesting. I shudder to think what will go up. I'm guessing more brick and iron "90s Urban Loft Living"?

God forbid they raise building height. Would we just get taller versions of this dreck?
 

The building you are complaining about is not City Ridge, but rather Upton Place, which is mostly a reskinning of an existing building.

[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:

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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

I'm not pleased by its aesthetics either. It's very dark and boxy. I'm concerned what the replacement for Mazza will look like. I liked the old, marble faced nall building. It was austere, but elegant.

It will look like more of the same generic mixed use stuff. It's as if all of the developers save money by buying essentially the same design plans off the internet with minimal customization.

The Urban Loft thing looks so dated. Like Ballston, 1990s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I walk by the squat + boxy City Ridge development going up next to Fannie Mae (not to be confused with the weird, but cool triangle building), I think "City Ridge, the 90s are calling!" They want their "urban loft living" back!!!

I have no doubt it will have nice amenities, but whoever chose the design did a huge disservice to such a beautiful, open avenue. Is this Crystal City in the 90s??

Then there's the absurd Scandi looking (in the not good way) building with boxy green metal trim and a small, unappealing entry way across from Cactus that just got built. It totally ruins the pretty corner view that curves to the Cathedral.

And Mazza sits in ruins. As far as I can tell, they didn't even try to reclaim/reuse the beautiful stone facing. Just smashed it to bits. Such waste. Mazza was weird, but at least architecturally interesting. I shudder to think what will go up. I'm guessing more brick and iron "90s Urban Loft Living"?

God forbid they raise building height. Would we just get taller versions of this dreck?
 

The building you are complaining about is not City Ridge, but rather Upton Place, which is mostly a reskinning of an existing building.

They shouldn't have skinned it. It was much cooler looking before with its maximalist 80s vibe. I fear for all those plate glass windows in the next wave of riots. The rioters loved our Tenley big boxes.

[Anonymous]

This is America, y'all. Have you seen the houses they build in the suburbs too? Most people have terrible taste and they don't even know it. We have put up with ugly, poor quality architecture forever and it's a real shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Mazza Galerie replacement will look phenomenal. It is stick built over concrete—that’s how they build these days. But the brick is not thin veneer but full size brick for the exterior walls. It will look like the architect’s other projects in Denmark. The people
commenting here will be most pleased with the result.

Please post other work by Danish architect when you have a chance. I like what they did with Fannie Mae (preservation of Facade. If they had offset it with the triangle building set further apart would have been perfect and they could have dialogued with each other-old meets new. Unfortunately density bros want ...density, and now the two interesting/beautiful buildings are sat next to a squat shoe box (Upton Place) that is not as nice/pleasing as the building it replaced. I also don't see the appeal of any of the triangle or shoebox building apartments that are on the shadowed/no views side. The Density Bros need to answer for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Mazza Galerie replacement will look phenomenal. It is stick built over concrete—that’s how they build these days. But the brick is not thin veneer but full size brick for the exterior walls. It will look like the architect’s other projects in Denmark. The people
commenting here will be most pleased with the result.

Please post other work by Danish architect when you have a chance. I like what they did with Fannie Mae (preservation of Facade. If they had offset it with the triangle building set further apart would have been perfect and they could have dialogued with each other-old meets new. Unfortunately density bros want ...density, and now the two interesting/beautiful buildings are sat next to a squat shoe box (Upton Place) that is not as nice/pleasing as the building it replaced. I also don't see the appeal of any of the triangle or shoebox building apartments that are on the shadowed/no views side. The Density Bros need to answer for this.

Here’s a project the architect is doing in london right now: https://3xn.com/project/65-crutched-friars

[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:

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.

The stick-built monstrosity at 4000 Wisconsin next to City Ridge is definitely closer to Wisconsin Avenue than the large brick building that it replaced. The green buffer is gone. It's fugly.

This is what the push for “density” gets you.

Vibrant urban mixed-use density in Ward 3: the greedy, unimaginative, deregulatory big development agenda dressed up in “progressive”-sounding language to resonate in DC (“affordable housing”, “inclusive”, “welcoming”), lobbied and flacked by a Trump operative.