Well, there goes the view (Hearst Park and Pool)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not zoned for housing and it is owned by DPR...why would you even think of public housing as some sort of racist veiled threat?

I don't know why public housing would be put on hearst park, but the new homeless shelter was wedged into a police station a few blocks away rather than the original observatory plan, so who knows?

City land is already owned by the city. The observatory location was a third party where the city would have had excessive costs.

If you mean those accrued by crossing the more influential neighbors, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not zoned for housing and it is owned by DPR...why would you even think of public housing as some sort of racist veiled threat?

I don't know why public housing would be put on hearst park, but the new homeless shelter was wedged into a police station a few blocks away rather than the original observatory plan, so who knows?

City land is already owned by the city. The observatory location was a third party where the city would have had excessive costs.

If you mean those accrued by crossing the more influential neighbors, sure.

No,literally, they would have had to pay a developer for both the land and construction. By building where they did, they only incurred construction costs. Also, the current location is closer to a metro stop and potential jobs than the first site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not zoned for housing and it is owned by DPR...why would you even think of public housing as some sort of racist veiled threat?

I don't know why public housing would be put on hearst park, but the new homeless shelter was wedged into a police station a few blocks away rather than the original observatory plan, so who knows?

City land is already owned by the city. The observatory location was a third party where the city would have had excessive costs.

If you mean those accrued by crossing the more influential neighbors, sure.

No,literally, they would have had to pay a developer for both the land and construction. By building where they did, they only incurred construction costs. Also, the current location is closer to a metro stop and potential jobs than the first site.

I thought the made a deal that really benefits the developer more than anyone in the end? And since when does DC care about saving money...pleeeaaaase...!

[Anonymous]

No, the deal they got at the end was to pay a contractor to build a building on city land.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP. The Hearst pool structure is unnecessarily tall and intrusive. If feels like no one thinks these things through. They just plunk em down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the deal they got at the end was to pay a contractor to build a building on city land.

doesn't the developer get to take it at the end of the lease? Or is it forever city property? I recall reading it was a fairly awful "deal"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. The Hearst pool structure is unnecessarily tall and intrusive. If feels like no one thinks these things through. They just plunk em down.

Agree, There is such smart design and beautiful architecture out there--whether Sidwells gorgeous green building or the old Hearst with its nice addition. This could have looked so much more harmonious with the setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not zoned for housing and it is owned by DPR...why would you even think of public housing as some sort of racist veiled threat?

I don't know why public housing would be put on hearst park, but the new homeless shelter was wedged into a police station a few blocks away rather than the original observatory plan, so who knows?

City land is already owned by the city. The observatory location was a third party where the city would have had excessive costs.

If you mean those accrued by crossing the more influential neighbors, sure.

No,literally, they would have had to pay a developer for both the land and construction. By building where they did, they only incurred construction costs. Also, the current location is closer to a metro stop and potential jobs than the first site.

I thought the made a deal that really benefits the developer more than anyone in the end? And since when does DC care about saving money...pleeeaaaase...!

The first deal for the Ward 3 homeless shelter would have been a sweetheart deal for the developer that owned the land -- which also happened to be one of Bowser's biggest campaign donors --and absurdly, comically expensive for the city. The Council put a stop to it and moved it to city-owned land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the deal they got at the end was to pay a contractor to build a building on city land.

doesn't the developer get to take it at the end of the lease? Or is it forever city property? I recall reading it was a fairly awful "deal"

You're thinking of the first plan for the Ward 3 shelter in Cathedral Heights. Bowser worked out a ridiculously one-sided deal in which the developer would have built the shelter, operated it at a massive profit and then taken complete control of the land again after 20 years. The deal made no financial sense for anyone but the developer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the deal they got at the end was to pay a contractor to build a building on city land.

doesn't the developer get to take it at the end of the lease? Or is it forever city property? I recall reading it was a fairly awful "deal"

You're thinking of the first plan for the Ward 3 shelter in Cathedral Heights. Bowser worked out a ridiculously one-sided deal in which the developer would have built the shelter, operated it at a massive profit and then taken complete control of the land again after 20 years. The deal made no financial sense for anyone but the developer.

Oh God yeah. That plan was awful. Yes I mixed them up. I dont mind the placement of the new shelter , but dont love all the variances for architecture it received (pushed thru) or its ultimate design. Can we have some better design going forward? Thinking now of the Comp Plan and how it will impact hiatoric diatrict in CP...

[Anonymous]

Other than historic, there is no design review in DC. I don't know what architectural variances the PP is talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than historic, there is no design review in DC. I don't know what architectural variances the PP is talking about.

My understanding is they pushed through some height

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than historic, there is no design review in DC. I don't know what architectural variances the PP is talking about.

It's also quite unattractive and has shared bathrooms--which is a really questionable decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than historic, there is no design review in DC. I don't know what architectural variances the PP is talking about.

It's also quite unattractive and has shared bathrooms--which is a really questionable decision.

Is this true? There is no way that in 2020 you would build new housing without private bathrooms. That just makes no design sense other than it might be less expensive to build.

But wouldn't the displaced families want a bit of privacy using the bathroom in the middle of the night? This can't be true. That would be the ultimate failure of woke compassion.

The hotels sound nicer now. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than historic, there is no design review in DC. I don't know what architectural variances the PP is talking about.

It's also quite unattractive and has shared bathrooms--which is a really questionable decision.

Is this true? There is no way that in 2020 you would build new housing without private bathrooms. That just makes no design sense other than it might be less expensive to build.

But wouldn't the displaced families want a bit of privacy using the bathroom in the middle of the night? This can't be true. That would be the ultimate failure of woke compassion.

The hotels sound nicer now. Unbelievable.

The pool has shared bathrooms, not the shelter.