New Cleveland Park library is a missed opportunity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ..

I have the impression that a number of GGW's bloggers wanted to live in Brooklyn, NY. Having failed to "make it there" they want to re-make Washington DC according to their notion of what New York City is.

[Anonymous]

Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

[Anonymous]

Sorry...snuck in the back of a restaurant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

I think that you mean "Density, developers and donations"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

But it is not now nor has it ever been green space - it has been a fenced in parking lot for 40 years. This is like the anti McMillan nut jobs pining for something that has never been there and never will though this site (which isn't that big) will have half an acre of green space which is half an acre more than it has now.

In any case as stated earlier the ANC and the Ward Councilmember both support the proposal so they can take it up with their representatives but I'll ask again would you rather this housing go in CP instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

I think that you mean "Density, developers and donations"!

Those awful people building housing! Like the housing you live in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

I think that you mean "Density, developers and donations"!

Those awful people building housing! Like the housing you live in!

Uh, huh. Look at the DC General debacle. If you think that closing DC General is all about helping the homeless, think again. It's about the mayor making a prime site available to her developer/crony/supporters. Look at how they already started demolition on the complex before people moved out to new shelters (most of which haven't been built yet). They finally had to slow demolition when lead and asbestos concerns were raised. But it's clear that the homeless are an afterthought to turning the property over to Greater Greater Development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

But it is not now nor has it ever been green space - it has been a fenced in parking lot for 40 years. This is like the anti McMillan nut jobs pining for something that has never been there and never will though this site (which isn't that big) will have half an acre of green space which is half an acre more than it has now.

In any case as stated earlier the ANC and the Ward Councilmember both support the proposal so they can take it up with their representatives but I'll ask again would you rather this housing go in CP instead?

What is confusing to you? This is going in someone's neighborhood and the neighbors would like MORE green space in the RE-DEVELOPMENT than proposed. Once it doesn't go in, it will never go in. The density and donations crowd will make a bundle, and the neighbors would like to be heard, They are 'taking it up', by sharing their views with the paper and protesting in front of the restaurant. It has to do with CP in that wanting less density and more "living space' for people to enjoy the city is not unique to Ward 3. It is a theme everywhere the developers are tearing through and putting things up as fast as they can. I applaud NIMBYs, in any neighborhood, who are looking out for quality of life for the people actually living there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

But it is not now nor has it ever been green space - it has been a fenced in parking lot for 40 years. This is like the anti McMillan nut jobs pining for something that has never been there and never will though this site (which isn't that big) will have half an acre of green space which is half an acre more than it has now.

In any case as stated earlier the ANC and the Ward Councilmember both support the proposal so they can take it up with their representatives but I'll ask again would you rather this housing go in CP instead?

What is confusing to you? This is going in someone's neighborhood and the neighbors would like MORE green space in the RE-DEVELOPMENT than proposed. Once it doesn't go in, it will never go in. The density and donations crowd will make a bundle, and the neighbors would like to be heard, They are 'taking it up', by sharing their views with the paper and protesting in front of the restaurant. It has to do with CP in that wanting less density and more "living space' for people to enjoy the city is not unique to Ward 3. It is a theme everywhere the developers are tearing through and putting things up as fast as they can. I applaud NIMBYs, in any neighborhood, who are looking out for quality of life for the people actually living there.

And what is confusing to you about democracy? The people elected to represent these folks support this project.

Now if you want to pay to create more greenspace, and even on publicly owned land it costs money, and cover the lost opportunity cost of getting more housing feel free. But plenty of people disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

But it is not now nor has it ever been green space - it has been a fenced in parking lot for 40 years. This is like the anti McMillan nut jobs pining for something that has never been there and never will though this site (which isn't that big) will have half an acre of green space which is half an acre more than it has now.

In any case as stated earlier the ANC and the Ward Councilmember both support the proposal so they can take it up with their representatives but I'll ask again would you rather this housing go in CP instead?

What is confusing to you? This is going in someone's neighborhood and the neighbors would like MORE green space in the RE-DEVELOPMENT than proposed. Once it doesn't go in, it will never go in. The density and donations crowd will make a bundle, and the neighbors would like to be heard, They are 'taking it up', by sharing their views with the paper and protesting in front of the restaurant. It has to do with CP in that wanting less density and more "living space' for people to enjoy the city is not unique to Ward 3. It is a theme everywhere the developers are tearing through and putting things up as fast as they can. I applaud NIMBYs, in any neighborhood, who are looking out for quality of life for the people actually living there.

And what is confusing to you about democracy? The people elected to represent these folks support this project.

Now if you want to pay to create more greenspace, and even on publicly owned land it costs money, and cover the lost opportunity cost of getting more housing feel free. But plenty of people disagree with you.

Is that your answer to the current adminsitration s backroom deals as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great article in today's metro section about mayor and council selling out to developers in Ivy City. Residents want green space for recreation and children to play, developers have addressed affordable housing, mixed business, but not actual open air for humans to live and breathe. Seems a theme and that CP residents are not the only ones concerned with the city's vision of how they should live.

Your post makes no sense - did you read the actual article?

The re-development includes open space and the restoration of the school for community usage and is supported by both the Ward 5 Councilmember and the local ANC.

Not sure what you mean by "open air for humans to live and breathe" as this will have no impact on that and will actually take a fenced in surface parking lot re-develop it into housing. Seems like something CP residents, who don't want new housing in their own neighborhood, could get behind?

And Ivy City residents could come over to Rock Creek Park for some of that "open air."

I did read the article. The thrust was that the Ivy City residents were not pleased with the proposed green space and that the Mayor snuck in the back door to a celebration with developers while the neighborhood protested outside. Again, density, density and developers. Did you read the article?

But it is not now nor has it ever been green space - it has been a fenced in parking lot for 40 years. This is like the anti McMillan nut jobs pining for something that has never been there and never will though this site (which isn't that big) will have half an acre of green space which is half an acre more than it has now.

In any case as stated earlier the ANC and the Ward Councilmember both support the proposal so they can take it up with their representatives but I'll ask again would you rather this housing go in CP instead?

What is confusing to you? This is going in someone's neighborhood and the neighbors would like MORE green space in the RE-DEVELOPMENT than proposed. Once it doesn't go in, it will never go in. The density and donations crowd will make a bundle, and the neighbors would like to be heard, They are 'taking it up', by sharing their views with the paper and protesting in front of the restaurant. It has to do with CP in that wanting less density and more "living space' for people to enjoy the city is not unique to Ward 3. It is a theme everywhere the developers are tearing through and putting things up as fast as they can. I applaud NIMBYs, in any neighborhood, who are looking out for quality of life for the people actually living there.

And what is confusing to you about democracy? The people elected to represent these folks support this project.

Now if you want to pay to create more greenspace, and even on publicly owned land it costs money, and cover the lost opportunity cost of getting more housing feel free. But plenty of people disagree with you.

Is that your answer to the current adminsitration s backroom deals as well?

Which back room deals are those?

Look just because you don't like something and disagree with it doesn't mean it is a back room deal, doesn't mean it is a bad idea and doesn't mean any one else agrees with you.

In this case all of the elected people who support this project are up for re-election long before ground will be broken on this project so any or all of them can be voted out if the public disagrees with them. Or it could be that lots of people think taking a fenced off parking lot and boarded up building and developing it into housing and putting it on the tax rolls is a really good idea, an idea that creates some green space that not now (or ever) has existed at this location.

[Anonymous]

The only people who are disappointed that the new Cleveland Park library doesn’t include high rise condos inhabit the Greater Greater Washington echo chamber. Not only is theirs a marginal view, but GGW has been discredited as basically a big development lobbyist masquerading as nonprofit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people who are disappointed that the new Cleveland Park library doesn’t include high rise condos inhabit the Greater Greater Washington echo chamber. Not only is theirs a marginal view, but GGW has been discredited as basically a big development lobbyist masquerading as nonprofit.

Oh geez no GGW hasn't been discredited since your accusation is completely untrue (and they are not a non-profit anyhow) nor have the things they are advocating been shown to be marginal or unpopular. But keep on tooting the old crazy horn - one thing the GGW crowd has going for it (besides being right) is age.