Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Other than all the buildings around a metro smell like pee? And there are randoms all over who care nothing for the community? hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Other than all the buildings around a metro smell like pee? And there are randoms all over who care nothing for the community? hmm.

It would also help if the Metro trains actually provided semi-frequent service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Other than all the buildings around a metro smell like pee? And there are randoms all over who care nothing for the community? hmm.

But that's due to homeless people and people with dogs...can't do much about the dogs, people just don't have decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Not every Metro station. Friendship Heights may make sense for higher density; Capitol Hill not so much, because it's an historic district. One size should not fit all.

[Anonymous]

Come on. Don’t live in the city if you are too good for public transportation. The Metro is already there. It makes sense to have housing near it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Not every Metro station. Friendship Heights may make sense for higher density; Capitol Hill not so much, because it's an historic district. One size should not fit all.

This thread is about Tenleytown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Not every Metro station. Friendship Heights may make sense for higher density; Capitol Hill not so much, because it's an historic district. One size should not fit all.

They shouldn't put Metro stations where they don't want density.

Historic preservation isn't an obstacle that can't be overcome. There are ways to increase density and maintain character. I would argue that greater density is actually in keeping with the historic character, those rowhouses weren't inhabited by childless couples when they were new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They could be more affordable than the minimum, if the adjacent residents demanded it rather than simply fighting every.single.development.proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They could be more affordable than the minimum, if the adjacent residents demanded it rather than simply fighting every.single.development.proposal.

Right. Tell us the last time that the DC Office of Planning opposed a PUD or other development proposal on the basis that there should be more affordable housing (not that IZ is so affordable).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development by metro stations should have high density. It’s difficult to make a rational argument against that.

Not every Metro station. Friendship Heights may make sense for higher density; Capitol Hill not so much, because it's an historic district. One size should not fit all.

They shouldn't put Metro stations where they don't want density.

Historic preservation isn't an obstacle that can't be overcome. There are ways to increase density and maintain character. I would argue that greater density is actually in keeping with the historic character, those rowhouses weren't inhabited by childless couples when they were new.

Row houses are great. 10 story buildings in outlying neighborhoods, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Who thinks it’s a nifty idea to sacrifice 40 to 50 feet of the Janney school playground so that a private developer can build 7 or 8 more floors on top of the Tenley library for upmarket flats and a handful of “inclusive zoning” units? There are few clearer examples of privatizing public assets for private profit.

[Anonymous]

Can't the Janney Community do something to stop this?

[Anonymous]

Why should they have say to stop it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should they have say to stop it?

Giving away a chunk of the Janney school playground to enable a private development on top of the library seems messed up, no?