First Johnson's, now Sullivan's! Who is the landlord behind this?

[Anonymous]

Best thing about this as its owned by AU they'll pay no taxes if they sell the site for housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Generally in historic districts, particularly outside of downtown, infill buildings are not considered compatible under HPRB standard unless they are within 1 or 2 stories of nearby structures. If taller buildings were desired near all Metro stops, them DC would not have designated historic districts.

Desired by whom?

It's interesting how some people are steadfastly opposed to the ahistorical presence of tall buildings in designated historic districts, but don't have any problems with the ahistorical presence of cars in designated historic districts.

Exactly. Which is why DC council legislation passed last year that denies RPP to residents in new buildings that are exempt from providing off street parking is such a win-win!

[Anonymous]

And exactly nothing being posted for pages upon pages is anymore about a toy store in Tenleytown. Just the same “YIMBY transit bros” showing everyone how brilliant they are. Hijacking thread after thread after thread. I’m not sure that they are capable of even discussing another topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Generally in historic districts, particularly outside of downtown, infill buildings are not considered compatible under HPRB standard unless they are within 1 or 2 stories of nearby structures. If taller buildings were desired near all Metro stops, them DC would not have designated historic districts.

Desired by whom?

It's interesting how some people are steadfastly opposed to the ahistorical presence of tall buildings in designated historic districts, but don't have any problems with the ahistorical presence of cars in designated historic districts.

Exactly. Which is why DC council legislation passed last year that denies RPP to residents in new buildings that are exempt from providing off street parking is such a win-win!

For real historical authenticity, there wouldn't be any on-street parking at all. Or any on-street driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And exactly nothing being posted for pages upon pages is anymore about a toy store in Tenleytown. Just the same “YIMBY transit bros” showing everyone how brilliant they are. Hijacking thread after thread after thread. I’m not sure that they are capable of even discussing another topic.

Density Bros don’t care about toy stores. Not their concept of “vibrant urban density.”

[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:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

Just threw up in my mouth a little

[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:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

Yes. Why not. There is a shortage of housing and Tenleytown could certainly stand to be built up more along Wisconsin Ave. If AU replaced their GW Med building with 8 story housing units, how would that not serve the best interest of Tenleytown and DC?

[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:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

Yes. Why not. There is a shortage of housing and Tenleytown could certainly stand to be built up more along Wisconsin Ave. If AU replaced their GW Med building with 8 story housing units, how would that not serve the best interest of Tenleytown and DC?

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

[Anonymous]

All these YIMBY folks don’t own a backyard or anything.

There are a ton of apartments being built as has been noted. All these folks insistent on more more building can’t afford the condos soon to be for rent.

Small retail - like Sullivan’s - is over. Such stores can’t swing the rent for the space in one of these new overbuilds:

[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:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

Yes. Why not. There is a shortage of housing and Tenleytown could certainly stand to be built up more along Wisconsin Ave. If AU replaced their GW Med building with 8 story housing units, how would that not serve the best interest of Tenleytown and DC?

Yes, blocking the sun is good for Tenleytown and DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these YIMBY folks don’t own a backyard or anything.

There are a ton of apartments being built as has been noted. All these folks insistent on more more building can’t afford the condos soon to be for rent.

Small retail - like Sullivan’s - is over. Such stores can’t swing the rent for the space in one of these new overbuilds:

"Yeah they took Paradise and they built me a parking lot"🎶🎵

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

No, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

No, it's not.

""Big Yellow Taxi"

They paved paradise
Put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise
Put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise
Put up a parking lot..." - Joni Mitchell

[Anonymous]

I am a big fan of Joni Mitchell's earlier work, so I am just going to point out that

1. parking lots are the OPPOSITE of density.
2. the opponents of development plans in DC generally want to maintain or increase (not decrease) parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

the housing under development is all matter of right. next time, support laws that force developers to make more affordable units available rather than just flexing into 'no new development' mode.