New Cleveland Park library is a missed opportunity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

GGW is a 501c4, which is a form of nonprofit. It allows GGW to engage in political activity, which they eagerly do on behalf of their developer and real estate law firm funders, several of which are disclosed on their website and in their public filings.

When the so-called “smart growth” echo chamber speaks of a “density hole” they should realize that it might more accurately describe a paucity of grey matter.

[Anonymous]

GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

Big developers advocating for 'affordable housing' is just another argument thrown against the wall to get more density and height than the comprehensive plan allows. It's just like the 'smart growth' mantra. Whatever sticks.

The reality, however, is that Big Development and the GGW amen corner want to up zone a number of rent controlled properties in various wards, including Ward 3 in upper Northwest. This would have the effect of substantially decreasing the number of more affordable properties. "Inclusionary zoning" in new projects would not make up for the number of rent controlled units lost, nor would it pack the same affordable economic impact to renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

There's tons of land and new areas that can be "built up"- like the clever shared apartments in Arlington (with shared kitchens and social spaces). Why it makes sense to go into established neighborhoods, pretty much historical neighbor hoods that once changed will never be able to go back is clearer to you than to me. Better to invest in public transport that will keep people flowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

There's tons of land and new areas that can be "built up"- like the clever shared apartments in Arlington (with shared kitchens and social spaces). Why it makes sense to go into established neighborhoods, pretty much historical neighbor hoods that once changed will never be able to go back is clearer to you than to me. Better to invest in public transport that will keep people flowing.

Development is expensive, and developers want greater access to those neighborhoods that will support offerings at high prices and offer greater return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

GGW again has been actively recruiting and training candidates for local ANCs, who will vote the party line on development and planning issues if they are elected. They already have GGW recruits on several ANCs, including in upper Northwest, and look to increase their numbers. These seats matter, because DC agencies like the Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Review Board accord ANCs "great weight" on matters that come before these bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

There's tons of land and new areas that can be "built up"- like the clever shared apartments in Arlington (with shared kitchens and social spaces). Why it makes sense to go into established neighborhoods, pretty much historical neighbor hoods that once changed will never be able to go back is clearer to you than to me. Better to invest in public transport that will keep people flowing.

So Arlington is in DC? Do you think DC is fully developed? Do you think the DC economy should be in stasis from where it is now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW incorporating as a non-profit is a relatively recent thing because they received an offer from a foundation do do advocacy for affordable housing.

Just because developers want more density and are willing to take on more affordable housing - thus aligned goals, doesn't mean GGW is in the pockets of developers.

There are a lot of environmental, tax policy, transportation policy and other quality of life issues that make more density attractive. A lot of people want it, an the fact is, land is a finite commodity, so why not use land in the smartest way possible?

Big developers advocating for 'affordable housing' is just another argument thrown against the wall to get more density and height than the comprehensive plan allows. It's just like the 'smart growth' mantra. Whatever sticks.

The reality, however, is that Big Development and the GGW amen corner want to up zone a number of rent controlled properties in various wards, including Ward 3 in upper Northwest. This would have the effect of substantially decreasing the number of more affordable properties. "Inclusionary zoning" in new projects would not make up for the number of rent controlled units lost, nor would it pack the same affordable economic impact to renters.

OMG enough with this rent control argument - you guys think you are so clever but you are not. I believe 8% of the rental apartments in Ward 3 are rent controlled and while that is the highest percentage in the city it is a tiny percentage of units in both the Ward and the city. And there is no income screening for these units nor is there a centralized way for anyone low income to even find an available rent controlled unit. Also as I understand it rent control units have very low turnover rates. Or to put it another way those units have almost zero impact on the cities affordability for lower income residents.

And the argument that upzoning will eliminate this handful of scattered units (and they are scattered) is also absurd - there are almost zero examples in DC of existing apartment buildings being torn down for new ones - in most cases upzoning enables an owner to go at most 4 stories above what is already there and in most cases less than that so it isn't even going to be economical to tear down an existing (and likely paid off building) to get a bigger building and thus shedding a few units.

But since the proposed changes to the Comp Plan are all currently part of the public record perhaps you can provide a specific example of a proposal to upzone an existing apartment building and you get a bonus if you can provide evidence that the building has rent controlled units and the number of those units.

[Anonymous]

"Density hole".

[Anonymous]

Can you please name these developer groomed anc candidates? Would be fantastic to have a cheat sheet on whom to not vote for (if so inclined)

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed with adding housing and density to the Cleveland Park library. But there is another major public project in the planning stages, Eaton Elementary School, where a mixed-use, public-private partnership is a possibility. If the wing toward Macomb St is rebuilt, there could be several floors of housing on top, including affordable units. This would help to maintain school diversity, while providing socio-economic diversity in the middle of Cleveland Park. Let's make this win-win opportunity happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the ship has sailed with adding housing and density to the Cleveland Park library. But there is another major public project in the planning stages, Eaton Elementary School, where a mixed-use, public-private partnership is a possibility. If the wing toward Macomb St is rebuilt, there could be several floors of housing on top, including affordable units. This would help to maintain school diversity, while providing socio-economic diversity in the middle of Cleveland Park. Let's make this win-win opportunity happen.

And “ideas” like this are why people just don’t even listen to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the ship has sailed with adding housing and density to the Cleveland Park library. But there is another major public project in the planning stages, Eaton Elementary School, where a mixed-use, public-private partnership is a possibility. If the wing toward Macomb St is rebuilt, there could be several floors of housing on top, including affordable units. This would help to maintain school diversity, while providing socio-economic diversity in the middle of Cleveland Park. Let's make this win-win opportunity happen.

I am one of the staunch so-called pro-development posters.

John Eaton is not a good PPP candidate, IMO - the location is not like Janney and the Tenleytown library, which are right on Wisconsin Ave. In the case of Eaton, the DCPS needs to figure out the best and maximum way to provide an excellent campus and school building for the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the ship has sailed with adding housing and density to the Cleveland Park library. But there is another major public project in the planning stages, Eaton Elementary School, where a mixed-use, public-private partnership is a possibility. If the wing toward Macomb St is rebuilt, there could be several floors of housing on top, including affordable units. This would help to maintain school diversity, while providing socio-economic diversity in the middle of Cleveland Park. Let's make this win-win opportunity happen.

I am one of the staunch so-called pro-development posters.

John Eaton is not a good PPP candidate, IMO - the location is not like Janney and the Tenleytown library, which are right on Wisconsin Ave. In the case of Eaton, the DCPS needs to figure out the best and maximum way to provide an excellent campus and school building for the students.

Isn't it also in a historic district? Wouldn't that make such a plan exceedingly difficult to pull off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the ship has sailed with adding housing and density to the Cleveland Park library. But there is another major public project in the planning stages, Eaton Elementary School, where a mixed-use, public-private partnership is a possibility. If the wing toward Macomb St is rebuilt, there could be several floors of housing on top, including affordable units. This would help to maintain school diversity, while providing socio-economic diversity in the middle of Cleveland Park. Let's make this win-win opportunity happen.

I am one of the staunch so-called pro-development posters.

John Eaton is not a good PPP candidate, IMO - the location is not like Janney and the Tenleytown library, which are right on Wisconsin Ave. In the case of Eaton, the DCPS needs to figure out the best and maximum way to provide an excellent campus and school building for the students.

Isn't it also in a historic district? Wouldn't that make such a plan exceedingly difficult to pull off?

Not only is it in the historic district, it was actually the cornerstone of the application for recognition of the historic district. And is one square block.