Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

[Anonymous]

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

But isn’t this worse for the environment ? Idling vehicles and vehicles in stop and go traffic emit more pullulions than in more fluid traffic. Backed-up cars just make respiratory problems worse for pedestrians, nearby residents and even cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

You betray your ignorance. The DC district preservation laws don’t have anything to say about paint colour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

You betray your ignorance. The DC district preservation laws don’t have anything to say about paint colour.

It's a reference to useless process. As the Medium Rare owners about their journey to install a frigging pergola.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

You betray your ignorance. The DC district preservation laws don’t have anything to say about paint colour.

It's a reference to useless process. As the Medium Rare owners about their journey to install a frigging pergola.

In Chevy Chase?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

You betray your ignorance. The DC district preservation laws don’t have anything to say about paint colour.

It's a reference to useless process. As the Medium Rare owners about their journey to install a frigging pergola.

In Chevy Chase?

CP has a historic district. Chevy Chase doesn't, but now looks like it will soon.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

No one who resides on the side streets off Connecticut Ave wants to have dedicated turn lanes into those streets. Turn lanes will be inviting off ramps for commuter traffic to divert to other routes when Conn Ave is slow. As a result, dedicated turn lanes are even less likely to happen than the dedicated bike lanes.

Cars already turn. The turn lanes make it so they aren't backing up other cars. There aren't new turn signals being proposed. Just paint on a street.

No Left turn at rush hour restrictions would certainty help at many intersections

So how will residents get home?

Such restrictions already exist in Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase and at certain DC intersections among Reno, Western, etc. It’s possible to make a turn at a few streets so that people in the neighborhood can get home but it greatly restricts commuter and cut-thru traffic into side streets.

The objective is to keep through traffic on the Connecticut arterial, right?

In parts of Woodley Park, Van Ness and Cleveland Park, this would be virtually impossible to enact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

Wood siding with stucco then. Jesus. Same thing. Mary and crew gonna give everyone a hard time just because they can and they enjoy exercising power over others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

Wood siding with stucco then. Jesus. Same thing. Mary and crew gonna give everyone a hard time just because they can and they enjoy exercising power over others.

Someone seems mega- (or MAGA?) obsessed with someone named Mary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

Wood siding with stucco then. Jesus. Same thing. Mary and crew gonna give everyone a hard time just because they can and they enjoy exercising power over others.

They tried to create a historic district 15 years ago and the community voted it down by a 4-to-1 margin.

Frumin is against and let’s hope the process at least is the same as last time as I think the community will again vote it down by a similarly wide margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

Wood siding with stucco then. Jesus. Same thing. Mary and crew gonna give everyone a hard time just because they can and they enjoy exercising power over others.

They tried to create a historic district 15 years ago and the community voted it down by a 4-to-1 margin.

Frumin is against and let’s hope the process at least is the same as last time as I think the community will again vote it down by a similarly wide margin.

Didn’t realize Chairman Frumin had power over historic designations.

[Anonymous]

There are a number of historic districts that n Washington DC and most residents seem quite happy with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I don't think any of this shit matters. Mary Rowse unilaterally filed her 20 year old Historic District designation request this week. Now everyone in this area will be doomed to kneeling at her altar and begging to be able to do light gray paint rather than white.

Historic preservation doesn't cover paint color.

Wood siding with stucco then. Jesus. Same thing. Mary and crew gonna give everyone a hard time just because they can and they enjoy exercising power over others.

They tried to create a historic district 15 years ago and the community voted it down by a 4-to-1 margin.

Frumin is against and let’s hope the process at least is the same as last time as I think the community will again vote it down by a similarly wide margin.

Didn’t realize Chairman Frumin had power over historic designations.

He doesn’t, but assuming all the ANCs are against, the affected population is against and the Ward 3 rep is against…makes it hard to approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a number of historic districts that n Washington DC and most residents seem quite happy with them.

I wouldn’t say most residents are happy with them vs most residents tolerate them.

On the one hand, nobody moves into Georgetown planning to tear down an 18th century home and replace with a modern home.

However, CC has absolutely no common style and there are many homes built after 1980.

This is one person’s mission to impose their aesthetic in the population. Again, it has no popular support.