Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

I hate to break it to you, but the other parts of the city are already built up. Please tell us where you would put this that provide a more equitable solution for all of our residents?

Pretty much all of Wards 7 and 8. The land of light industry, 2-story garden complexes and surface parking lots.

Concentrating affordable housing in Wards 7 and 8 won't be any more popular with Wards 7 and 8 than it is with Ward 3 -- and Ward 3 already has far less affordable or low-income housing than those wards do.

Wards 7 and 8 already carry an over concentration of affordable housing. Ward 3 barely has any. What is your point?

That's exactly my point, disagreeing with the PP who suggested building affordable housing in Ward 7 and Ward 8 instead of in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many apartments in the area and the schools are already overcrowded!

No, definitely too few apartments in-bounds for Janney. Time to diversify Janney!

[Anonymous]

They should add housing and redraw boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

** The units are NOT different; the prices are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

In housing policy, "affordable" is a euphemism for subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

** The units are NOT different; the prices are.

I remember the outcry a few years ago when a developer built a building that had separate elevators for the market-rate and affordable apartments. They changed the rules then and said the affordable units have to be the same as the market-rate ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

I live in Ward 7. Oh, and this city is not blended at all. There is no reason to increase affordable housing in ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

** The units are NOT different; the prices are.

I remember the outcry a few years ago when a developer built a building that had separate elevators for the market-rate and affordable apartments. They changed the rules then and said the affordable units have to be the same as the market-rate ones.

Same entrance, maybe, but they are not the same. The IZ unit (not truly affordable, as they are at 80% of AMI), tend to be stuck above the trash dock, next to service alleys, have less light, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many apartments in the area and the schools are already overcrowded!

No, definitely too few apartments in-bounds for Janney. Time to diversify Janney!

They're building lots of apartments at the Lady Bird where Super-Fresh used to be. And then there will be apartments at the Lord & Taylor and Mazza gallery sites, which are within the Janney zone. But they won't bring economic diversity. "Affordable housing" is just a GGW and DC Office of Planning talking point for lots of market-rate dense housing in Upper NW. And don't forget the 1500 new housing units at Upton and Wisconsin, just a stone's throw from Janney. They may not be in the Janney district now, but one never knows how re-zoning will turn out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not 7 and 8, PP? Again - you “build it up in Ward 3” folks fail to realize basic economics of this situation. It makes no sense to me why we all can’t promote 7 and 8 to attract more investment. Ward 3 has all of that already.

There is plenty of investment in Wards 7 and 8. You clearly have not been there in a while if you haven't seen the changes and the proposals coming out for more. That said, there are almost no affordable housing units in Ward 3 as compared to the rest of the city. Past experience has shown that it is best to blend economic strata across geography rather than concentrate "the poors" in areas.

There is a smaller amount of “affordable units” in Ward 3 because of market economics. The units are different; the prices are. Unless you want a controlled economy, that will still be true, albeit slightly less so, even if you build more ‘affordable’ units.

The real answer is making other areas of the city more attractive. Trying to cram everyone into one ward and a few schools is just dumb. Trying to defy market forces to a substantial degree is also dumb, as is trying to make Ward 3 extra crowded and, therefore, less appealing in the name of equity.

** The units are NOT different; the prices are.

I remember the outcry a few years ago when a developer built a building that had separate elevators for the market-rate and affordable apartments. They changed the rules then and said the affordable units have to be the same as the market-rate ones.

There will obviosly be a separate entrance and elevators for the Tenley library tower. Residents won't go through the iibrary. The tower entrance and service driveway will be build on the west (back) side of the library, facing Janney.

[Anonymous]

It will be sad indeed to lose part of the Janney playground to make possible a for-profit playground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be sad indeed to lose part of the Janney playground to make possible a for-profit playground.

Development. A portion of a public playground lost to private development. That sucks, Mary Cheh.