Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood is going to have a lot easier time negotiating with a school than it will with Safeway. It was a good move for everyone.

So GDS will give us back a full-size grocery store on that site?

There's already a Whole Foods in Tenley and a giant Giant less than a mile to the north at Friendship Heights (where there is another WF also). There is another giant Giant going up about a mile south. Get a grip or get a hobby or something -- you don't live in a food desert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood is going to have a lot easier time negotiating with a school than it will with Safeway. It was a good move for everyone.

So GDS will give us back a full-size grocery store on that site?

No. Maybe a cafeteria though.

If Safeway sold, it's highly unlikely another store would come in. There is a lot more competition now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood is going to have a lot easier time negotiating with a school than it will with Safeway. It was a good move for everyone.

So GDS will give us back a full-size grocery store on that site?

No. Maybe a cafeteria though.

If Safeway sold, it's highly unlikely another store would come in. There is a lot more competition now.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Giant project was blocked because wealthy people on Newark Street didn't want more traffic. BOTTOM LINE. A very small handful of rich, connected folks blocked the project. They wrap themselves in the mantle of greenish, liberal, progressive mantle, but they are just rich people trying to keep the status quo. Blocking relatively affordable housing, expanded retail and opportunity. I live in the neighborhood. I am a greenish liberal too. But all this talk about concerns about design is bull. They used design to block progress.

This is ironic because the development design is frankly pretty bad. The tall building in particular with its windows looks like some anywhere airport hotel. The design seems cheap, of mediocre quality at best and does not relate at all to the surroundings (including being located across the street from an historic district). In that sense, it's a perfect fit with Giant, the anchor of the project. By contrast, take a look at the quality design and detail of the apartments going up next to the Wardman Marriiott or the corner building at Bethesda Row. The Office of Planning and the DC zoning board rushed Cathedral Commons through (there's lots of back-channel speculation on why), and gave not a whit of consideration to design issues. Now it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Giant project was blocked because wealthy people on Newark Street didn't want more traffic. BOTTOM LINE. A very small handful of rich, connected folks blocked the project. They wrap themselves in the mantle of greenish, liberal, progressive mantle, but they are just rich people trying to keep the status quo. Blocking relatively affordable housing, expanded retail and opportunity. I live in the neighborhood. I am a greenish liberal too. But all this talk about concerns about design is bull. They used design to block progress.

This is ironic because the development design is frankly pretty bad. The tall building in particular with its windows looks like some anywhere airport hotel. The design seems cheap, of mediocre quality at best and does not relate at all to the surroundings (including being located across the street from an historic district). In that sense, it's a perfect fit with Giant, the anchor of the project. By contrast, take a look at the quality design and detail of the apartments going up next to the Wardman Marriiott or the corner building at Bethesda Row. The Office of Planning and the DC zoning board rushed Cathedral Commons through (there's lots of back-channel speculation on why), and gave not a whit of consideration to design issues. Now it shows.

Maybe there would not have been the rush to push through if CPCA had not obstructed for over a decade....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Giant project was blocked because wealthy people on Newark Street didn't want more traffic. BOTTOM LINE. A very small handful of rich, connected folks blocked the project. They wrap themselves in the mantle of greenish, liberal, progressive mantle, but they are just rich people trying to keep the status quo. Blocking relatively affordable housing, expanded retail and opportunity. I live in the neighborhood. I am a greenish liberal too. But all this talk about concerns about design is bull. They used design to block progress.

This is ironic because the development design is frankly pretty bad. The tall building in particular with its windows looks like some anywhere airport hotel. The design seems cheap, of mediocre quality at best and does not relate at all to the surroundings (including being located across the street from an historic district). In that sense, it's a perfect fit with Giant, the anchor of the project. By contrast, take a look at the quality design and detail of the apartments going up next to the Wardman Marriiott or the corner building at Bethesda Row. The Office of Planning and the DC zoning board rushed Cathedral Commons through (there's lots of back-channel speculation on why), and gave not a whit of consideration to design issues. Now it shows.

Maybe there would not have been the rush to push through if CPCA had not obstructed for over a decade....

Apparently it was rushed through on orders of the mayor's office. The speculation is that Giant had demanded unconditional approval of Cathedral Commons as a quid pro quo for opening one or more stores in some challenging parts of town. Other speculation was that pay to play lubricated the way. The fact was that some commission staff in an aside said they had never seen such a pre-wired process for a major PUD project.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I had followed the Cathedral Commons develoment since it was first proposed and this is the very first time I have heard this.

Not sure I believe it, as the different controls and layers of government necessary for this make it seem implausible, particularly given the make-up of the Zoning Commission (2 federal 3 local including Anthony Hood, who is about as anti-development as it gets).

[Anonymous]

GDS should agree to dedicate the current lower school campus to DC for use as a charter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS should agree to dedicate the current lower school campus to DC for use as a charter school.

Yes! The palisades definitely needs a charter school to help bridge the education gap for all of those at risk kids. And it is so convenient for most parents to get their kids to with all that public transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Giant project was blocked because wealthy people on Newark Street didn't want more traffic. BOTTOM LINE. A very small handful of rich, connected folks blocked the project. They wrap themselves in the mantle of greenish, liberal, progressive mantle, but they are just rich people trying to keep the status quo. Blocking relatively affordable housing, expanded retail and opportunity. I live in the neighborhood. I am a greenish liberal too. But all this talk about concerns about design is bull. They used design to block progress.

This is ironic because the development design is frankly pretty bad. The tall building in particular with its windows looks like some anywhere airport hotel. The design seems cheap, of mediocre quality at best and does not relate at all to the surroundings (including being located across the street from an historic district). In that sense, it's a perfect fit with Giant, the anchor of the project. By contrast, take a look at the quality design and detail of the apartments going up next to the Wardman Marriiott or the corner building at Bethesda Row. The Office of Planning and the DC zoning board rushed Cathedral Commons through (there's lots of back-channel speculation on why), and gave not a whit of consideration to design issues. Now it shows.

Maybe there would not have been the rush to push through if CPCA had not obstructed for over a decade....

Apparently it was rushed through on orders of the mayor's office. The speculation is that Giant had demanded unconditional approval of Cathedral Commons as a quid pro quo for opening one or more stores in some challenging parts of town. Other speculation was that pay to play lubricated the way. The fact was that some commission staff in an aside said they had never seen such a pre-wired process for a major PUD project.

12 years o deliberation ain't enough? C'mon. This is why nobody want ps to build another store up in Tenleytown. That's why a school is going in there. A handful of people know what's best for entire neighborhoods? The people who oppose are generally, in my view, just as selfish and self interested as the developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I had followed the Cathedral Commons develoment since it was first proposed and this is the very first time I have heard this.

Not sure I believe it, as the different controls and layers of government necessary for this make it seem implausible, particularly given the make-up of the Zoning Commission (2 federal 3 local including Anthony Hood, who is about as anti-development as it gets).

Anthony Hill has been very tough on some development projects. But definitely not in this case. He repeatedly cut off questioning and ignored crucial admissions of problems by DDOT (like the width of a street used by trucks that now requires widening). Clearly there was another agenda at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Giant project was blocked because wealthy people on Newark Street didn't want more traffic. BOTTOM LINE. A very small handful of rich, connected folks blocked the project. They wrap themselves in the mantle of greenish, liberal, progressive mantle, but they are just rich people trying to keep the status quo. Blocking relatively affordable housing, expanded retail and opportunity. I live in the neighborhood. I am a greenish liberal too. But all this talk about concerns about design is bull. They used design to block progress.

This is ironic because the development design is frankly pretty bad. The tall building in particular with its windows looks like some anywhere airport hotel. The design seems cheap, of mediocre quality at best and does not relate at all to the surroundings (including being located across the street from an historic district). In that sense, it's a perfect fit with Giant, the anchor of the project. By contrast, take a look at the quality design and detail of the apartments going up next to the Wardman Marriiott or the corner building at Bethesda Row. The Office of Planning and the DC zoning board rushed Cathedral Commons through (there's lots of back-channel speculation on why), and gave not a whit of consideration to design issues. Now it shows.

Maybe there would not have been the rush to push through if CPCA had not obstructed for over a decade....

Apparently it was rushed through on orders of the mayor's office. The speculation is that Giant had demanded unconditional approval of Cathedral Commons as a quid pro quo for opening one or more stores in some challenging parts of town. Other speculation was that pay to play lubricated the way. The fact was that some commission staff in an aside said they had never seen such a pre-wired process for a major PUD project.

12 years o deliberation ain't enough? C'mon. This is why nobody want ps to build another store up in Tenleytown. That's why a school is going in there. A handful of people know what's best for entire neighborhoods? The people who oppose are generally, in my view, just as selfish and self interested as the developers.

Don't be an oaf. They weren't deliberating the same project for 12 years. The record is clear that Giant kept changing its mind, including walking away from an agreement with community to build a new store that was signed under the sponsorship of Mayor Williams. Once the project known as Cathedral Commons was put forward (sometime in 2006 or so) it kept getting bigger and bigger with each iteration.

[Anonymous]

When I see how politics and hidden agendas can turn development projects into runaway trains, I think that GDS is a good solution rather than the uncertain scope of a major development.

[Anonymous]

So, you don't think there will be commercial development associated with GDS? Dream on.

Tenleytown is getting the worst of all worlds. An expanded school, no grocery store and high density mixed-use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, you don't think there will be commercial development associated with GDS? Dream on.

Tenleytown is getting the worst of all worlds. An expanded school, no grocery store and high density mixed-use.

Enough with the grocery store whining, when there are people in cities all over the US who have meaningful access only to convenience stores. Get off your butt and walk or take the bus or drive to the Giant that is ONE MILE AWAY or walk ACROSS THE STREET to the Whole Foods.