New Cleveland Park library is a missed opportunity

[Anonymous]

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

That is the biggest crock of bullshit and you should stop peddling it. Giant signed an agreement with Mayor Williams’ administration and local community groups in 2003 to build a new store, but then Giant breached the agreement. The explanation at the time was that Giant’s parent was distracted by fighting a big securities fraud charge. In any event, the fault was Giant’s, not GGW’s favorite NIMBY bogeyman.

[Anonymous]

I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

As you say, read the articles at the time. Turns out, the Giant-DC Office of Planning-Community agreement was even earlier, in 2002 not 2003. Giant promised to build the new store by 2003, but then reneged. The community could have had a new store 11 or 12 years earlier had Giant not breached the agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/07/giant-neighbors-reach-deal-on-renovations/162860a5-5593-46ce-9351-8baba983985c/?utm_term=.faf4bfdebd29

[Anonymous]

Cleveland Park as "density hole"? Bwawawawa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

Whatever the history, it turned out nice so if the NIMBYs played a role good on them. I hope NIMBYs stay active in DC. Once you build something it is really difficult to retroactively improve it or have a vision for it. Better to get it right the first time, even if it takes longer. It seems like the only people who want to rush things are those without a stake or ethical connections to the community they want to hustle along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

As you say, read the articles at the time. Turns out, the Giant-DC Office of Planning-Community agreement was even earlier, in 2002 not 2003. Giant promised to build the new store by 2003, but then reneged. The community could have had a new store 11 or 12 years earlier had Giant not breached the agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/07/giant-neighbors-reach-deal-on-renovations/162860a5-5593-46ce-9351-8baba983985c/?utm_term=.faf4bfdebd29

You conveniently omit the 1999-2000 part of the history. It should have been completed by 2002 as a one and one half story development and no tower on the north parcel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

As you say, read the articles at the time. Turns out, the Giant-DC Office of Planning-Community agreement was even earlier, in 2002 not 2003. Giant promised to build the new store by 2003, but then reneged. The community could have had a new store 11 or 12 years earlier had Giant not breached the agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/07/giant-neighbors-reach-deal-on-renovations/162860a5-5593-46ce-9351-8baba983985c/?utm_term=.faf4bfdebd29

You conveniently omit the 1999-2000 part of the history. It should have been completed by 2002 as a one and one half story development and no tower on the north parcel.

Two or three years is not "more than 10." The Post article makes clear that the community did not want a blank wall along Wisconsin Ave., as Giant originally proposed. After initial opposition to that plan and subsequent negotiations with Giant and the District, the 2002 agreement for a new store was signed. Giant was supposed to have opened the new store, with a vibrant Wisconsin frontage, in 2003. Giant breached the agreement, however. Had Giant acted with integrity, the community would have had a new store by 2003. Don't put this on the GGW "NIMBY boogeyman."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should stop peddling it? Read the articles from the time. It is all well documented. Maybe you should stop lying about the role the community played in delaying the project and then retroactively complaining about the aesthetics.

As you say, read the articles at the time. Turns out, the Giant-DC Office of Planning-Community agreement was even earlier, in 2002 not 2003. Giant promised to build the new store by 2003, but then reneged. The community could have had a new store 11 or 12 years earlier had Giant not breached the agreement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/05/07/giant-neighbors-reach-deal-on-renovations/162860a5-5593-46ce-9351-8baba983985c/?utm_term=.faf4bfdebd29

You conveniently omit the 1999-2000 part of the history. It should have been completed by 2002 as a one and one half story development and no tower on the north parcel.

Two or three years is not "more than 10." The Post article makes clear that the community did not want a blank wall along Wisconsin Ave., as Giant originally proposed. After initial opposition to that plan and subsequent negotiations with Giant and the District, the 2002 agreement for a new store was signed. Giant was supposed to have opened the new store, with a vibrant Wisconsin frontage, in 2003. Giant breached the agreement, however. Had Giant acted with integrity, the community would have had a new store by 2003. Don't put this on the GGW "NIMBY boogeyman."

Nope, not what Giant originally proposed. It is what Giant proposed in response to threats of historic preservation and zoning fights - to go matter of right. You are either willfully misrepresenting history or are underinformed. Either is a bad look. Please stop.

[Anonymous]

It's facile to say that it was the fault of the neighborhood that a new Giant store took a long time, when it's pretty clear that Giant itself was the cause of several years of delay -- whether because of a corporate re-organization, extracting itself from securities fraud charges, angling for a better deal, whatever.

[Anonymous]

I like the end result so not sure what the issue is. The real eyesore will be all the height and aesthetic variances they have for the proposed homeless shelter. I hope they call the ugly garage "the Cheh-Bowser Ward 3 Garage"-with a plaque or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the end result so not sure what the issue is. The real eyesore will be all the height and aesthetic variances they have for the proposed homeless shelter. I hope they call the ugly garage "the Cheh-Bowser Ward 3 Garage"-with a plaque or something.

The concrete stick-built garage is a total eyesore. They wouldn't even put that up in an industrial area. I hope that everyone in the south end of McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place fights their tax assessments this year and next. DC has effected a taking of property value thanks to the Comrade Cheh Garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the end result so not sure what the issue is. The real eyesore will be all the height and aesthetic variances they have for the proposed homeless shelter. I hope they call the ugly garage "the Cheh-Bowser Ward 3 Garage"-with a plaque or something.

The concrete stick-built garage is a total eyesore. They wouldn't even put that up in an industrial area. I hope that everyone in the south end of McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place fights their tax assessments this year and next. DC has effected a taking of property value thanks to the Comrade Cheh Garage.

Has the Comrade Cheh-Venal Bowser garage been built yet? I can only imaging fighting a DC tax assessment.... can these folks join forces in some way to demand a reassessment? I don't understand how this shelter/garage skipped through the aesthetic and height requirements, but yes, it is a detriment that land's squarely on comrade cheh's shoulders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the end result so not sure what the issue is. The real eyesore will be all the height and aesthetic variances they have for the proposed homeless shelter. I hope they call the ugly garage "the Cheh-Bowser Ward 3 Garage"-with a plaque or something.

The concrete stick-built garage is a total eyesore. They wouldn't even put that up in an industrial area. I hope that everyone in the south end of McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place fights their tax assessments this year and next. DC has effected a taking of property value thanks to the Comrade Cheh Garage.

Has the Comrade Cheh-Venal Bowser garage been built yet? I can only imaging fighting a DC tax assessment.... can these folks join forces in some way to demand a reassessment? I don't understand how this shelter/garage skipped through the aesthetic and height requirements, but yes, it is a detriment that land's squarely on comrade cheh's shoulders.

Yes, the Chehgarage is built and visible in all of its ugly glory from both Idaho and Newark streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep the library there but build 10 or 12 floors of flats, mixture of upscale and affordable. A win-win.

this. But of course CP will argue its about character, never mind that most of Conn Avenue has apartment buidlings. They easily could have added at least 4 stories or housing but then a lot of it would have been affordable and no way are the limo liberals in CP allowing that to happen.

You might be surprised that the second highest number of rent controlled units in the entire city are in Ward 3, and many of them are in or near Cleveland Park, along Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues. The older apartment buildings definitely provide a lot of more affordable units. The irony is that the GGW/Smart Growth crowd wants to upzone the avenues further for downtown height and density. This would mean that these affordable buildings and rent controlled units would be replaced by upscale condos and flats, with relatively little 'inclusive zoning' units (which by the way are NOT the same thing as affordable or RC units) to compensate.

I think their criticism is more that you have SFHs starting immediately behind the first row of large buildings on Connecticut Ave. It's a bit ridiculous that 100 feet from CT Ave you have a sea of SFHs. They should allow upzoning of the SFH blocks immediately adjacent to CT Ave.

Like 3 blocks in or so? And then do the same thing 3 blocks east from Wisconsin. Pretty soon, Cleveland Park would no longer have SFHs! Ridiculous, but this is GGW's agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep the library there but build 10 or 12 floors of flats, mixture of upscale and affordable. A win-win.

this. But of course CP will argue its about character, never mind that most of Conn Avenue has apartment buidlings. They easily could have added at least 4 stories or housing but then a lot of it would have been affordable and no way are the limo liberals in CP allowing that to happen.

You might be surprised that the second highest number of rent controlled units in the entire city are in Ward 3, and many of them are in or near Cleveland Park, along Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues. The older apartment buildings definitely provide a lot of more affordable units. The irony is that the GGW/Smart Growth crowd wants to upzone the avenues further for downtown height and density. This would mean that these affordable buildings and rent controlled units would be replaced by upscale condos and flats, with relatively little 'inclusive zoning' units (which by the way are NOT the same thing as affordable or RC units) to compensate.

I think their criticism is more that you have SFHs starting immediately behind the first row of large buildings on Connecticut Ave. It's a bit ridiculous that 100 feet from CT Ave you have a sea of SFHs. They should allow upzoning of the SFH blocks immediately adjacent to CT Ave.

Like 3 blocks in or so? And then do the same thing 3 blocks east from Wisconsin. Pretty soon, Cleveland Park would no longer have SFHs! Ridiculous, but this is GGW's agenda.

I'm sorry- why is it ridiculous to have a sea of single family homes here? There are also such seas in Anacostia and near Catholic University. And Mt. Pleasant. And George town/burleith. What's the issue? What kind of high density sci fi city are you craving? Please build it elsewhere. DC is unique in many ways including low height and density. Pretty cool and unique, whereas you can find the city of your dreams in many places ..