Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

You mean like Tenley Hill where all of the WAGGgroup.com people live? They are only fighting this to protect the views from their dwellings. Talk about hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

So in the last comprehensive plan rewrite, under Fenty, that supposed Marion Barry deal was undone, right?

Anonymous wrote:Marion Barry cut a deal with the upper-caucasia in the mid-1980's to gain their vote in his first re-election bid. That is the short story as to why Wisconsin Avenue is underzoned, given it is a major street with high metro access.

[Anonymous]

If this is about tax revenue, why is the school taking far more taxable land to put a non-taxable school on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

No, the difference is that some people see doom and gloom around 8 stories but not 6. Some people see the revenue benefits to the city with those extra income taxes that can help pay for pay raises to first responders or teachers. Some people see more patronage of local retail with those extra residents, creating more jobs and opportunities.

Others simply want to exclude anyone else from enjoying what they already have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

You mean like Tenley Hill where all of the WAGGgroup.com people live? They are only fighting this to protect the views from their dwellings. Talk about hypocritical.

Aaahhh. That all makes sense now. I really couldn't understand why people were waxing poetic about the Martens and the Safeway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

You mean like Tenley Hill where all of the WAGGgroup.com people live? They are only fighting this to protect the views from their dwellings. Talk about hypocritical.

Aaahhh. That all makes sense now. I really couldn't understand why people were waxing poetic about the Martens and the Safeway.

+1 Thank you for clearing this up. I figured there had to be a personal motive because the position otherwise is just too ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Nobody's falling for the ancient history. We're talking about what people moved to this community for.

The simple matter is that what GDS wants is an outrageous land grab against what the objective Comprehensive Plan calls for now and they have to justify why we should give developers a big fat precedent to put 90' towers on every corner that is quite lovely without any chain retail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody's falling for the ancient history. We're talking about what people moved to this community for.

The simple matter is that what GDS wants is an outrageous land grab against what the objective Comprehensive Plan calls for now and they have to justify why we should give developers a big fat precedent to put 90' towers on every corner that is quite lovely without any chain retail.

I've lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and just can't get worked up over GDS's mixed use plan. It seems like a tempest in a teapot. The concerns about school traffic seem so much more substantive to me.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, by-right projects at this site and the Safeway site would be denser and produce more car trips. And you couldn't withhold RPP or control what kind of retail goes in.

I just don't believe this is about two stories and some baseless claim about developers tweaking the zoning regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

No, the difference is that some people see doom and gloom around 8 stories but not 6. Some people see the revenue benefits to the city with those extra income taxes that can help pay for pay raises to first responders or teachers. Some people see more patronage of local retail with those extra residents, creating more jobs and opportunities.

Others simply want to exclude anyone else from enjoying what they already have.



Does Tenleytown really need two 8-story luxury private dorms for AU students whose daddies will write big checks every month? Because that's what these towers are going to be. It isn't like the "cool creative class Millennials" are hankering to live in Tenleytown and practically on top of a school, no less. They want the buzz of U St and edgier neighborhoods to the east. No amount of pale imitation is going to bring them to Tenleytown. Other newer buildings along Wisconsin Avenue, including much of Cathedral Commons, have basically become the east campus of AU, and "GDS Commons" will be more of the same, maybe with a Five Guys and a taco bar on the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's a 33% increase in density over zoning, which is why it requires a PUD. That's a big deal. And guess what? If the higher building height is approved in a special process, then the next time a developer comes in and wants to bust zoning, he points to the extra height PUD as the neighborhood baseline. The difficulty for Big Development and their front organizations and partners is that people aren't as stupid as they would like to think.

No, the difference is that some people see doom and gloom around 8 stories but not 6. Some people see the revenue benefits to the city with those extra income taxes that can help pay for pay raises to first responders or teachers. Some people see more patronage of local retail with those extra residents, creating more jobs and opportunities.

Others simply want to exclude anyone else from enjoying what they already have.

Does Tenleytown really need two 8-story luxury private dorms for AU students whose daddies will write big checks every month? Because that's what these towers are going to be. It isn't like the "cool creative class Millennials" are hankering to live in Tenleytown and practically on top of a school, no less. They want the buzz of U St and edgier neighborhoods to the east. No amount of pale imitation is going to bring them to Tenleytown. Other newer buildings along Wisconsin Avenue, including much of Cathedral Commons, have basically become the east campus of AU, and "GDS Commons" will be more of the same, maybe with a Five Guys and a taco bar on the bottom.

But who really cares? Is it hurting anyone to have AU students there? Is it hurting anyone to have a Five Guys? What other options do you realistically hold out for that site?

[Anonymous]

A taco strip club would literally be better than what's there now.

[Anonymous]

Does tenleytown need miles and miles of single family homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A taco strip club would literally be better than what's there now.

Winning comment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A taco strip club would literally be better than what's there now.

All strip clubs have tacos available

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A taco strip club would literally be better than what's there now.

All strip clubs have tacos available

I was once in a strip club that had astro turf - can we have that too? Would that qualify as green space?