Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

What ever happened to the "Harvard Commons" development that GDS was proposing to build at that location?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's refocus on a central point: Should Janney students sacrifice a chunk of their playground so that a developer can build glass condos or flats on top of the Tenleytown library?

Yes, they should, if that is the only way to get truly affordable housing (I'm talking a sizable percentage below 50% AMI, ideally below 30%) on a city-owned parcel in Ward 3.

But I don't think it's the only way. They can renovate the library and use some of that space for things people are worried will spill over into the playground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When the library was under design - this was all debated at the time.

Anyone remember where it settled?

Yes it was always part of the plan. That’s why it has those huge million dollar beams inside, to support floors above it we were told. Now, I don’t quite get why the leaky roof had a huge window on the top which leaks all the time and creates such major issues in that space. I imagine Cheh didn’t want to push the density issue when the library was first renovated but it’s been at least 8 years now and our city has only suffered more with no affordable housing and especially on that side of the park, so yes…add away!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the library was under design - this was all debated at the time.

Anyone remember where it settled?

Yes it was always part of the plan. That’s why it has those huge million dollar beams inside, to support floors above it we were told. Now, I don’t quite get why the leaky roof had a huge window on the top which leaks all the time and creates such major issues in that space. I imagine Cheh didn’t want to push the density issue when the library was first renovated but it’s been at least 8 years now and our city has only suffered more with no affordable housing and especially on that side of the park, so yes…add away!!

If you think that this is going to be all affordable housing, dream on. It will be a "public private partnership" which means that the public puts up the asset and takes most of the risk and a politically connected developer gets the upside. There will be the usual statutory minimum number of "inclusive zoning" units, which are not really affordable. Up to 80% AMI qualifies, or an annual income of about $71,000 for a single person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

One way to discourage homeless people from camping out in the library all day is to put at the entrance one of those bag-sizing baskets that the airlines use. If the bag exceeds the basket size, it doesn't come in the library. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t they adding schools in NW?

Anything could happen. DC is even studying a 100 percent lottery assignment system, with string at risk preferences.. In 5 years AU Park students might be assigned Hearst or even to a school in SE, not necessarily their neighborhood school. This is the only way to address DEI meaningfully in DCPS.

The surest way to start a new wave of white flight, just like in San Francisco. Even the staunchest progressives won’t have their kids bused from AU Park to SE. They will not be dumb enough to do this.

And why would this be such as bad thing? DCPS would become more diverse, with more inclusive access to top performing schools.

DCPS would become less diverse under such a plan. Exponentially so.

It depends on your view what diversity is. It would certainly accelerate DCPS becoming anti-racist.

A school system exclusively populated by poor black and brown kids is neither diverse nor anti-racist.

Yes, this is what DC schools were like when I was coming up. They were not diverse or anti racist. They were underperforming and scary. Those of us who could went to parochials and privates. My parochial that I attended was all middle and lower middle class black families, fleeing .

Huh. Define ‘brown’ because that encompasses a lot of people.

And there aren’t as many Asian people in DC. Adding whites does help with diversity but you all tend to stick to your own. Like many groups.

Also having less whites may make it less racist but the goal is to help white children too. If they aren’t around other people how will they learn? It is not the same for POC children because they are bombarded with white figures in the media and toys.

Just to make sure people don’t think I’m saying this is exclusive to white people, similarly when I was young and visiting family in South Korea and neighborhood boy rubbed my skin and asked why the ‘dirt’ wouldn’t rub off. He did not know I was part Mexican and sometimes Mexican people are brown. There’s less brown people there and in the media.

No exposure causes ignorance.

There are plenty of ways that our city can foment "exposure" without misguided and doomed to backfire communist like techniques . Charter schools and voucher choices were one of the best ways to broaden educational-geographical offerings in our city in a long time, along with the lottery system. Folks have far more say and.mobility in their kids choices, without being forced into something. As to housing, the city could use their excess funds for specific groups of people (long time residents, rent to buy etc) rather than just encouraging rampant building that will provide more housing to yuppies from Arlington .

Oh this is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

One way to discourage homeless people from camping out in the library all day is to put at the entrance one of those bag-sizing baskets that the airlines use. If the bag exceeds the basket size, it doesn't come in the library. Period.

The city needs to create day shelters for those who seek shelter at night and are kicked out by day, and involuntary commitment for those who insist in living on the streets full time . There was a huge human poop outside the entrance to Wilson Pool last week . There has also been a lot of faeces/human waste in the library parking lot . It's really not good for anyone .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

One way to discourage homeless people from camping out in the library all day is to put at the entrance one of those bag-sizing baskets that the airlines use. If the bag exceeds the basket size, it doesn't come in the library. Period.

The city needs to create day shelters for those who seek shelter at night and are kicked out by day, and involuntary commitment for those who insist in living on the streets full time . There was a huge human poop outside the entrance to Wilson Pool last week . There has also been a lot of faeces/human waste in the library parking lot . It's really not good for anyone .

A short to medium solution would be for DC to modify shipping containers into micro-housing for homeless people and construct a village, with social support and nighttime security, on the parking areas surrounding unused RFK stadium, a Metro accessible site. While there are long term visions for redevelopment there, this site could accommodate a large number of people while the District works on a longer term solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the library was under design - this was all debated at the time.

Anyone remember where it settled?

Yes it was always part of the plan. That’s why it has those huge million dollar beams inside, to support floors above it we were told. Now, I don’t quite get why the leaky roof had a huge window on the top which leaks all the time and creates such major issues in that space. I imagine Cheh didn’t want to push the density issue when the library was first renovated but it’s been at least 8 years now and our city has only suffered more with no affordable housing and especially on that side of the park, so yes…add away!!

If you think that this is going to be all affordable housing, dream on. It will be a "public private partnership" which means that the public puts up the asset and takes most of the risk and a politically connected developer gets the upside. There will be the usual statutory minimum number of "inclusive zoning" units, which are not really affordable. Up to 80% AMI qualifies, or an annual income of about $71,000 for a single person.

You can add more affordable housing when it is city owned land like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

One way to discourage homeless people from camping out in the library all day is to put at the entrance one of those bag-sizing baskets that the airlines use. If the bag exceeds the basket size, it doesn't come in the library. Period.

The city needs to create day shelters for those who seek shelter at night and are kicked out by day, and involuntary commitment for those who insist in living on the streets full time . There was a huge human poop outside the entrance to Wilson Pool last week . There has also been a lot of faeces/human waste in the library parking lot . It's really not good for anyone .

A short to medium solution would be for DC to modify shipping containers into micro-housing for homeless people and construct a village, with social support and nighttime security, on the parking areas surrounding unused RFK stadium, a Metro accessible site. While there are long term visions for redevelopment there, this site could accommodate a large number of people while the District works on a longer term solution.

They should do this. Not sure why we are allowing people to poop all around libraries and swimming pools. What next - cholera?

[Anonymous]

Just got back from the epicenter of the unhomed, SoCal.

No, no DC emphatically should NOT create a welcoming tent/container city for the homeless. It will induce new demand, the guy crapping on the Wilson doorstep will continue to do so.

DC police will not be mobilizing people off the sidewalks. Think about that for a minute.

And most of all ... a RFK unhomed city will become a permanent thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it necessary to take playground space to add a residential building? Maybe they add fewer floors and decrease the need for adjacent space?

Or advocate for the increased development by the old car dealership?

I don’t think the NIMBY approach is very productive.

Whether they add 2 or 10 floors on top of the library, they will have to build a separate entrance, elevator and stair access, loading and freight/refuse dock, etc. This will require taking space on the west (ie. Janney) of the building, with the entrance on Albermarle St.

At this point they may as well make it another homeless shelter as that is who lives in the library day in day out.

It shouldn’t be a homeless shelter. The library needs to have the balls to remove people who loiter there all day.

Seems like there would be a lot less need to kick people out if there were another place for them to go--like homes! But also if they aren't doing anything against library rules they have as much right to be there as you do. It's a public library, not a country club. The fact that you spent a lot of money to live nearby doesn't mean you bought the right to have poor people keep their distance from you.

One way to discourage homeless people from camping out in the library all day is to put at the entrance one of those bag-sizing baskets that the airlines use. If the bag exceeds the basket size, it doesn't come in the library. Period.

The city needs to create day shelters for those who seek shelter at night and are kicked out by day, and involuntary commitment for those who insist in living on the streets full time . There was a huge human poop outside the entrance to Wilson Pool last week . There has also been a lot of faeces/human waste in the library parking lot . It's really not good for anyone .

A short to medium solution would be for DC to modify shipping containers into micro-housing for homeless people and construct a village, with social support and nighttime security, on the parking areas surrounding unused RFK stadium, a Metro accessible site. While there are long term visions for redevelopment there, this site could accommodate a large number of people while the District works on a longer term solution.

They should do this. Not sure why we are allowing people to poop all around libraries and swimming pools. What next - cholera?

And next to our schools. The Wilson pool is next to, well, Wilson HS, and the library parking/dock is next to Janney. So gross.