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

[Anonymous]

the landlord is allowed to set the rent to whatever the market will support. Just like you are allowed to rent or sell your home for the max amount the market will support.

[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.

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.

Density Bros have been telling us for twenty years that development creates affordable units. The fact that they cannot identify those units in the past twenty years is besides the point. Oh and the fact that apparently studio efficiencies count as affordable housing units. The density argument is simply disingenuous.

[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.

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.

Not completely matter of right. City Ridge required a very important new access from Wisconsin Avenue, because the developer didn't want trucks and traffic using the existing Fannie Mae access road across the Post Office and then driving through the complex past all of the expensive condos and rentals it is marketing. So the developer sought an new access on the southern edge of the site, next to McLean Gardens. This very key permit required DDOT sign off. One of the ANCs involved asked for more affordable housing at the site, but the DC government apparently ignored this. Although DDOT's stated policy to to disfavor new vehicle accesses from major arterials (and this one creates a real mess by adding a new signal between two existing signals at Sidwell and the post office), not surprisingly DDOT bent over for the developer and the crucial sought-after "curb cut" permit went through like greased ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Density Bros have been telling us for twenty years that development creates affordable units. The fact that they cannot identify those units in the past twenty years is besides the point. Oh and the fact that apparently studio efficiencies count as affordable housing units. The density argument is simply disingenuous.

Roughly 8% of the new units built are affordable. Consider how expensive housing in general would be if there are 50,000 fewer units than there are today. Consider how much less property and income tax the city would have, if those units were never built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Not completely matter of right. City Ridge required a very important new access from Wisconsin Avenue, because the developer didn't want trucks and traffic using the existing Fannie Mae access road across the Post Office and then driving through the complex past all of the expensive condos and rentals it is marketing. So the developer sought an new access on the southern edge of the site, next to McLean Gardens. This very key permit required DDOT sign off. One of the ANCs involved asked for more affordable housing at the site, but the DC government apparently ignored this. Although DDOT's stated policy to to disfavor new vehicle accesses from major arterials (and this one creates a real mess by adding a new signal between two existing signals at Sidwell and the post office), not surprisingly DDOT bent over for the developer and the crucial sought-after "curb cut" permit went through like greased ....

And the city didn't ask for more affordable units in exchange for granting this access. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This song could also be the Ode to Hearst Park -- DC clear-cut cut so many of the trees and are paving part of this beautiful green oasis with concrete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Density Bros have been telling us for twenty years that development creates affordable units. The fact that they cannot identify those units in the past twenty years is besides the point. Oh and the fact that apparently studio efficiencies count as affordable housing units. The density argument is simply disingenuous.

Roughly 8% of the new units built are affordable. Consider how expensive housing in general would be if there are 50,000 fewer units than there are today. Consider how much less property and income tax the city would have, if those units were never built.

So your argument is to build, baby, build! so that DC can have more tax revenue? More units demand more services, particularly in NW DC where public schools, many of which have been significantly expanded, are over capacity again. So development is not just free money to the District. Moreover, DC politicians are not exactly frugal when it comes to not wasting revenue -- they spend like drunken sailors (although there may be controlled substances that are better analogies).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Not completely matter of right. City Ridge required a very important new access from Wisconsin Avenue, because the developer didn't want trucks and traffic using the existing Fannie Mae access road across the Post Office and then driving through the complex past all of the expensive condos and rentals it is marketing. So the developer sought an new access on the southern edge of the site, next to McLean Gardens. This very key permit required DDOT sign off. One of the ANCs involved asked for more affordable housing at the site, but the DC government apparently ignored this. Although DDOT's stated policy to to disfavor new vehicle accesses from major arterials (and this one creates a real mess by adding a new signal between two existing signals at Sidwell and the post office), not surprisingly DDOT bent over for the developer and the crucial sought-after "curb cut" permit went through like greased ....

And the city didn't ask for more affordable units in exchange for granting this access. What is your point?

That the DC government, even in a position where it has substantial leverage in a large development, doesn't really give a flying-F about affordable housing. But the promise of it is a great talking point for upzoning and increasing allowable density for even more market rate development.

[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.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

[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?

All of Tenley and Van Ness? Probably not, though greater density than exits should be permitted. Within a couple of blocks of the metro stations? Absolutely.

I understand that many people think the sole purpose of metrorail is to get people form sleepy suburban communities (including suburban communities within the DC borders) downtown to work, but that's an outdated view that doesn't take into account the massive investment the region has made, and continues to make, in metrorail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

How about pegging IZ at a much lower level than 80% AMI and requiring a serious percentage of IZ, at least 35%=40%, in exchange for a map amendment or higher 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:

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?

All of Tenley and Van Ness? Probably not, though greater density than exits should be permitted. Within a couple of blocks of the metro stations? Absolutely.

I understand that many people think the sole purpose of metrorail is to get people form sleepy suburban communities (including suburban communities within the DC borders) downtown to work, but that's an outdated view that doesn't take into account the massive investment the region has made, and continues to make, in metrorail.

But then under this logic, shouldn't developers have to pay a surtax or a special assessment tor the right to build taller and denser projects within x distance of the Metro? A user feel of sorts and sharing the upside realized by the developer to support the "massive investment in Metro." That revenue stream should be dedicated to Metro and public transit. But that might reduce developer margins, so Bowser, etc. would never support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

How about pegging IZ at a much lower level than 80% AMI and requiring a serious percentage of IZ, at least 35%=40%, in exchange for a map amendment or higher density?

Any rental subsidy should come directly from the government. It should not be an obligation of other tenants to directly subsidize other tenants driving up housing costs for everyone else in the process.