New Cleveland Park library is a missed opportunity

[Anonymous]

2,000 at Fannie Mae? Ugh. Cheh needs to cool it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park was built exactly for what it was zoned for. It wasn't zoned to be any more dense than that. If you wanted it to be more dense, then city-wide zoning laws needed to have been changed.

Zoning code was developed in 1958. It conformed to what was built in Cleveland Park in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

At this point, it is a historic district and cannot transform. But it is a waste of billions of dollars of regional investment not to have a few more people able to live on top of a metro station.

You realize this causes both development of greenfields "out there" as well as artificailly increased housing prices in the District, right?

You realize that there are almost 2000 new housing units already under permit but not yet constructed within a one-mile radius of the Cleveland Park Metro? And that doesn't include anything east of Rock Creek Park.

Fannie Mae on Wisconsin Avenue doesn't even qualify as Cleveland Park, and is a whole different neighborhood than the subject of this thread.

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park was built exactly for what it was zoned for. It wasn't zoned to be any more dense than that. If you wanted it to be more dense, then city-wide zoning laws needed to have been changed.

Zoning code was developed in 1958. It conformed to what was built in Cleveland Park in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

At this point, it is a historic district and cannot transform. But it is a waste of billions of dollars of regional investment not to have a few more people able to live on top of a metro station.

You realize this causes both development of greenfields "out there" as well as artificailly increased housing prices in the District, right?

You realize that there are almost 2000 new housing units already under permit but not yet constructed within a one-mile radius of the Cleveland Park Metro? And that doesn't include anything east of Rock Creek Park.

Fannie Mae on Wisconsin Avenue doesn't even qualify as Cleveland Park, and is a whole different neighborhood than the subject of this thread.

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

Yep, exactly, but the GGW crowd loves to discount the large amount of development that's either planned or already underway in Ward 3 because Alpert and the like are more interested in creating convenient boogeymen for their followers -- so-called NIMBYs, Jack Evans, anyone who dares disagree with them, etc. -- than actually proposing coherent policy. The site used to be much more interesting; now it's all about fostering a divisive, "us vs. them" mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2,000 at Fannie Mae? Ugh. Cheh needs to cool it.

It is essentially a matter of right project. Cheh has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park was built exactly for what it was zoned for. It wasn't zoned to be any more dense than that. If you wanted it to be more dense, then city-wide zoning laws needed to have been changed.

Zoning code was developed in 1958. It conformed to what was built in Cleveland Park in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

At this point, it is a historic district and cannot transform. But it is a waste of billions of dollars of regional investment not to have a few more people able to live on top of a metro station.

You realize this causes both development of greenfields "out there" as well as artificailly increased housing prices in the District, right?

You realize that there are almost 2000 new housing units already under permit but not yet constructed within a one-mile radius of the Cleveland Park Metro? And that doesn't include anything east of Rock Creek Park.

Fannie Mae on Wisconsin Avenue doesn't even qualify as Cleveland Park, and is a whole different neighborhood than the subject of this thread.

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

Bottom line, new residents at the former Fannie Mae site will be oriented to Tenleytown, not Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

No, not really relevant. The area is zoned for Hearst, not Eaton or Janney; the orientation will be the Tenleytown metro and Tenleytown businesses, just as it is for most of the people who live on the north end of McLean Gardens. There will be almost no residential parking impact, given the parking being built on site for both residents and the businesses on site. As it is, parking at Mclean Gardens is very tight, and that was made clear to the developers who responded in kind. The "one mile" in this case is to the Tenley metro, not the Cleveland Park metro.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

No, not really relevant. The area is zoned for Hearst, not Eaton or Janney; the orientation will be the Tenleytown metro and Tenleytown businesses, just as it is for most of the people who live on the north end of McLean Gardens. There will be almost no residential parking impact, given the parking being built on site for both residents and the businesses on site. As it is, parking at Mclean Gardens is very tight, and that was made clear to the developers who responded in kind. The "one mile" in this case is to the Tenley metro, not the Cleveland Park metro.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around Cleveland Park.

The development will turn Wisconsin Ave from Porter St to Van Ness St into a 16-hour-a-day cluster f. The addition of a third traffic light (to be used by big rig delivery trucks) between Rodman and the post office will create gridlock, particularly on school days when Sidwell is in session. The developer itself proposed removing street parking from Wisconsin Ave. between Rodman and Tilden during non-rush hours, so yes, there's parking impact right there.

[Anonymous]

To return to the topic, the new Cleveland Park library is grand. The historic district precludes major height and density in Cleveland Park proper. It's been around for 40 years and isn't going anywhere. That hasn't stopped significant new development from happening on the edges of Cleveland Park. Most folks seem to like their new library in the "village in the city."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park was built exactly for what it was zoned for. It wasn't zoned to be any more dense than that. If you wanted it to be more dense, then city-wide zoning laws needed to have been changed.

Zoning code was developed in 1958. It conformed to what was built in Cleveland Park in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

At this point, it is a historic district and cannot transform. But it is a waste of billions of dollars of regional investment not to have a few more people able to live on top of a metro station.

You realize this causes both development of greenfields "out there" as well as artificailly increased housing prices in the District, right?

You realize that there are almost 2000 new housing units already under permit but not yet constructed within a one-mile radius of the Cleveland Park Metro? And that doesn't include anything east of Rock Creek Park.

Fannie Mae on Wisconsin Avenue doesn't even qualify as Cleveland Park, and is a whole different neighborhood than the subject of this thread.

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

Bottom line, new residents at the former Fannie Mae site will be oriented to Tenleytown, not Cleveland Park.

They'll love their fast food and mattress stores.

[Anonymous]

Some people think its a good idea to house poors adjacent to where children ho to learn? Are you crazy, people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2,000 at Fannie Mae? Ugh. Cheh needs to cool it.

It is essentially a matter of right project. Cheh has nothing to do with it.

She has lots to do with the overall vision for Ward 3. She should be keeping tabs on things and lnforming and looking out for her constituents. If there is rampant overdevelopment on her watch, she's accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2,000 at Fannie Mae? Ugh. Cheh needs to cool it.

It is essentially a matter of right project. Cheh has nothing to do with it.

She has lots to do with the overall vision for Ward 3. She should be keeping tabs on things and lnforming and looking out for her constituents. If there is rampant overdevelopment on her watch, she's accountable.

Overdevelopment? We are lucky to get a few nice things to replace mattress stores. Compared to the rest of the city, Ward 3 is the home of tumbleweeds. Funny post though, thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

No, not really relevant. The area is zoned for Hearst, not Eaton or Janney; the orientation will be the Tenleytown metro and Tenleytown businesses, just as it is for most of the people who live on the north end of McLean Gardens. There will be almost no residential parking impact, given the parking being built on site for both residents and the businesses on site. As it is, parking at Mclean Gardens is very tight, and that was made clear to the developers who responded in kind. The "one mile" in this case is to the Tenley metro, not the Cleveland Park metro.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around Cleveland Park.

The development will turn Wisconsin Ave from Porter St to Van Ness St into a 16-hour-a-day cluster f. The addition of a third traffic light (to be used by big rig delivery trucks) between Rodman and the post office will create gridlock, particularly on school days when Sidwell is in session. The developer itself proposed removing street parking from Wisconsin Ave. between Rodman and Tilden during non-rush hours, so yes, there's parking impact right there.

How many truck per day will be using that egress? 4? 50?

That stretch of Wisconsin Avenue is already a cluster most daylight hours, the addition of this development isn't going to make it worse. If anything, it will provide another destination for people in the neighborhood to walk to. If more people walk to get groceries etc, then they won't be driving, so it is entirely possible that local traffic will actually improve. Who knows? Neither you nor I, so claiming doom and gloom for every development gets old. Cathedral Commons was going to be the end of Cleveland Park. To this day, parking in the neighborhood is as easy as it ever was, and Cathedral Commons is a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the standpoint of economic development and transit use, it's very relevant. The Deputy Mayor for Economic Development uses a one-mile radius in its studies, including the one that it did in the last two years on Cleveland Park. One mile to a Metro development is considered "transit accessible" from a zoning perspective. 2000 new housing units within the Cleveland Park area will add a significant number of potential users for transit and customers for local restaurants and other businesses. At the same time, there will be clear traffic, parking and school enrollment impacts locally.

In any event, given real estate submarkets and very different demand curves, it is highly doubtful that upscale condos and flats are fungible with townhouses and SFHs on Germantown "greenfields."

No, not really relevant. The area is zoned for Hearst, not Eaton or Janney; the orientation will be the Tenleytown metro and Tenleytown businesses, just as it is for most of the people who live on the north end of McLean Gardens. There will be almost no residential parking impact, given the parking being built on site for both residents and the businesses on site. As it is, parking at Mclean Gardens is very tight, and that was made clear to the developers who responded in kind. The "one mile" in this case is to the Tenley metro, not the Cleveland Park metro.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around Cleveland Park.

The development will turn Wisconsin Ave from Porter St to Van Ness St into a 16-hour-a-day cluster f. The addition of a third traffic light (to be used by big rig delivery trucks) between Rodman and the post office will create gridlock, particularly on school days when Sidwell is in session. The developer itself proposed removing street parking from Wisconsin Ave. between Rodman and Tilden during non-rush hours, so yes, there's parking impact right there.

How many truck per day will be using that egress? 4? 50?

That stretch of Wisconsin Avenue is already a cluster most daylight hours, the addition of this development isn't going to make it worse. If anything, it will provide another destination for people in the neighborhood to walk to. If more people walk to get groceries etc, then they won't be driving, so it is entirely possible that local traffic will actually improve. Who knows? Neither you nor I, so claiming doom and gloom for every development gets old. Cathedral Commons was going to be the end of Cleveland Park. To this day, parking in the neighborhood is as easy as it ever was, and Cathedral Commons is a non-issue.

The whole reason for the new entrance and egress ( which will require cutting all of those beautiful old oak trees on the south side of the Fannie site by the way) is that the developer does not want all the traffic for Wegmans to be going in through the main access to its site, disturbing the new residents in the condos and flats that it intends to sell. So the trucks and other vehicles will burden the existing residents on Rodman St in McLean Gardens. If the first community meeting at McLean Gardens developer boasted of his downtown connections. Evidently he has them because while DDOT disfavors new access points on the major arterials, this developer got one very quickly - despite the location near a number of existing cross points on Wisconsin Avenue. Wegmans (which unlike Giant has a reputation for high quality and an almost cult like attractiveness to shopperd) very much will be a destination. Giant and the investors in Cathedral Commons should be very worried about Wegmans and the Fannie development. They no doubt wish that they had spent money on real architects and landscape designers rather than using a mediocre design and cheap construction.

[Anonymous]

They spent the money on time because the NIMBY Cleveland Park residents fought and delayed the project for 10 years.