Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the kids in many of those 10 story apartments would all crowd into Janney. But so what, as long as GDS, the Aces and their developer cronies get to pocket the profits...

Umm. Yeah. Kids living on apartments get to go to "your" neighborhood public school.

Is that what this is all about, now that the neighborhood has taken back Janney and mostly rid itself of out of bound kids, let's make sure they don't get back in by buying or renting an apartment three blocks from the school? I've been reading this ridiculous NIMBY chain for months now and finally realized what it's about. Should have figured, given the neighborhood's sorry history on race.

Let's leave the NIMBY and race-baiting invective out of it, as well as the moralizing. (Yes, we've all heard so much about GDS's unique and storied history on integration, Eric Holder on the board, etc., etc.). Instead, let's get practical. Upper NW public schools are bursting at the seams today. They're overcrowded even just with families who live in their school zones. With more and more large projects in the area, whether GDS PUD Commons, the project just announced at Fannie's site, or visions of more 10-story multifamily buildings along Wisconsin (some of which will have parents with school aged kids), just where exactly is the school capacity to educate all of these new students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And of course the primary opponent to the new development at Martens were the residents at Tenley Hill, the 10 story building across the street, who didn't want their view blocked.

Irony?

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/article/13027041/wisconsin-badgers

And to add, the owner-occupied PN Hoffman building was ok, but a rental building of the same size is not.

You people are deplorable.

The new bike store is the best thing to happen at the Martens property! I was sorry when it was an empty lot, but now would love to see it stay as it is. This is exactly the sort of neighborhood oriented retail the area needs -- rather than another Sweetgreens or an Asian-inspired craft taco bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the kids in many of those 10 story apartments would all crowd into Janney. But so what, as long as GDS, the Aces and their developer cronies get to pocket the profits...

Umm. Yeah. Kids living on apartments get to go to "your" neighborhood public school.

Is that what this is all about, now that the neighborhood has taken back Janney and mostly rid itself of out of bound kids, let's make sure they don't get back in by buying or renting an apartment three blocks from the school? I've been reading this ridiculous NIMBY chain for months now and finally realized what it's about. Should have figured, given the neighborhood's sorry history on race.

Let's leave the NIMBY and race-baiting invective out of it, as well as the moralizing. (Yes, we've all heard so much about GDS's unique and storied history on integration, Eric Holder on the board, etc., etc.). Instead, let's get practical. Upper NW public schools are bursting at the seams today. They're overcrowded even just with families who live in their school zones. With more and more large projects in the area, whether GDS PUD Commons, the project just announced at Fannie's site, or visions of more 10-story multifamily buildings along Wisconsin (some of which will have parents with school aged kids), just where exactly is the school capacity to educate all of these new students?

It's the history of our neighborhood. And it's not very far in the past. Helps explain the present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area.

There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?

Here's your answer. Not very well. In theory (and sometimes in past practice), PUD developers were supposed to provide or fund longterm community amenities to offset the impacts of the added density and height that they won beyond what zoning would have given them. Sometimes the amenities were ok -- single building condo PUDS in Columbia Heights provided community theaters, new playgrounds, etc. But in recent years, developer lawyers and consultants have been able to get the zoning board to demand next to nothing. First, the developer will come in and claim the project itself is the amenity. Perhaps this could be so in a traditional food desert like Ward 8, but not in adding more retail in Upper NW. Or the developer will claim that the landscaping and other features to market the project are the amenities. Or the developer will just whittle the amenity package down. Look for example, at the two-block project Cathedral Commons just south of Tenleytown. The developer successfully claimed the few 'affordable' housing units required by DC law as a 'bonus amenity' in the PUD. The local ANC wanted a traffic mitigation escrow of $500K, but the developer successfully got it cut to $100K, enough to fund a handful of speed humps. Today, the only lasting "amenity" that one can see from the project is a circular planter with a little tree sticking out of it at the corner or Wisconsin and Idaho. There's a bench that surrounds it. Look for it when you drive by. This is how DC deals with projects that win added density. A cautionary tale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area.

There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?

The people who would live in these buildings would probably not be car owners, so the traffic concerns are unwarranted, particularly for a street that is already begrimed with traffic. Suburban traffic, which will only get worse because we are pushing people to live further out with cars rather than closer in without cars.

Ha! A new building opened a block away, on Wisconsin Ave. The developer claimed that all the Millenials don't drive, take Uber, transit, bikeshare, etc, and as a result provided few off-street parking spaces for the project. Guess what? It turns out that millenials do drive and do park their cars. On the already overcrowed side streets. Many of those cars don't even have DC plates but they got residential stickers anyway. So, yes, traffic concerns with added density are warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before calling people in the neighborhood deplorable, you should visit Janney and explain to Janney parents how it is not over-crowded. And perhaps you can compare density levels at Janney to GDS as well as the suburban neighborhood schools from which many GDS students travel to DC. There are practical issues here.

Maybe the boundaries need to be redrawn to alleviate the current overcrowding, but wait, you already fought that to maintain the status quo.

If the residents of Tenley and AU Park are so concerned about overcrowded Janney, why don't they consider going private? Or enroll their kids in a less crowded school in an up and coming area of DC? It might not be as homogenous as Janneytown, but I'll bet those schools could benefit from more involved parents and smart kids who will boost test scores. One City means broadening the tax base, DC needs to grow, and progress often involves change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area.

There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?

The people who would live in these buildings would probably not be car owners, so the traffic concerns are unwarranted, particularly for a street that is already begrimed with traffic. Suburban traffic, which will only get worse because we are pushing people to live further out with cars rather than closer in without cars.

Ha! A new building opened a block away, on Wisconsin Ave. The developer claimed that all the Millenials don't drive, take Uber, transit, bikeshare, etc, and as a result provided few off-street parking spaces for the project. Guess what? It turns out that millenials do drive and do park their cars. On the already overcrowed side streets. Many of those cars don't even have DC plates but they got residential stickers anyway. So, yes, traffic concerns with added density are warranted.

And why is your car and my cars (we've got two of then, as does every two-adult household on our Tenleytown block) differ from a car of an apartment resident? Just because we got here first seems a little silly. Adobe the corner from me is a family with four cars. Yes, four cars. Two adults and kids in high school and college (and you can't blame GDS for those cars because those kids went elsewhere). Time to chill out, and figure this is life in the big city!

[Anonymous]

The way to figure it out in the big city is to ensure that added density pays for the external costs and impacts it adds. In other words, more off-street parking spots, not fewer. More aggressive traffic calming like they do it in MD to keep added traffic on the main roads and not the neighborhood streets. It's common sense.

[Anonymous]

12:05 has it right. Developers should at least maintain the quality of life in a neighborhood in which they are operating.

11:26 -- suggesting that Janney parents who do not want additional crowding should simply go private or move schools -- I assume you are an anti-GDS troll. If not, I will just say that it makes no sense for GDS parents who want to develop the neighborhood to disrupt people who are here. Gotta be trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the kids in many of those 10 story apartments would all crowd into Janney. But so what, as long as GDS, the Aces and their developer cronies get to pocket the profits...

Umm. Yeah. Kids living on apartments get to go to "your" neighborhood public school.

Is that what this is all about, now that the neighborhood has taken back Janney and mostly rid itself of out of bound kids, let's make sure they don't get back in by buying or renting an apartment three blocks from the school? I've been reading this ridiculous NIMBY chain for months now and finally realized what it's about. Should have figured, given the neighborhood's sorry history on race.

Let's leave the NIMBY and race-baiting invective out of it, as well as the moralizing. (Yes, we've all heard so much about GDS's unique and storied history on integration, Eric Holder on the board, etc., etc.). Instead, let's get practical. Upper NW public schools are bursting at the seams today. They're overcrowded even just with families who live in their school zones. With more and more large projects in the area, whether GDS PUD Commons, the project just announced at Fannie's site, or visions of more 10-story multifamily buildings along Wisconsin (some of which will have parents with school aged kids), just where exactly is the school capacity to educate all of these new students?

It's the history of our neighborhood. And it's not very far in the past. Helps explain the present.

Racially-restrictive covenants were ruled unenforceable in 1948. The free black community around Fort Reno was destroyed by the Feds in the 1920s and replaced by Wilson and Deal which were created as public schools exclusively for white students. None of the current residents concerned about overdevelopment and the city's refusal to add infrastructure as needed lived in Tenleytown during that time. Nor, with a very few exceptions, did their families.

FWIW, many neighborhoods in DC had restrictive covenants during the first half of the 20th century. This wasn't a distinctive Tenleytown thing -- DC was a Jim Crow society.

[Anonymous]

Racism and barbarism are part of the history of the country. But they are not really relevant to GDS's plans to build more upscale apartments than zoning permits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area.

There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?

The people who would live in these buildings would probably not be car owners, so the traffic concerns are unwarranted, particularly for a street that is already begrimed with traffic. Suburban traffic, which will only get worse because we are pushing people to live further out with cars rather than closer in without cars.

Ha! A new building opened a block away, on Wisconsin Ave. The developer claimed that all the Millenials don't drive, take Uber, transit, bikeshare, etc, and as a result provided few off-street parking spaces for the project. Guess what? It turns out that millenials do drive and do park their cars. On the already overcrowed side streets. Many of those cars don't even have DC plates but they got residential stickers anyway. So, yes, traffic concerns with added density are warranted.

BS. I drive to Tenleytown all of the time and am always able to find a parking spot. Always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way to figure it out in the big city is to ensure that added density pays for the external costs and impacts it adds. In other words, more off-street parking spots, not fewer. More aggressive traffic calming like they do it in MD to keep added traffic on the main roads and not the neighborhood streets. It's common sense.

More off street parking spots do nothing but house more cars which is traffic. If you want to relieve traffic, then house fewer cars and do more mass transit and transit sharing like zip cars and Capita Bikeshare.

When you argue for more parking spaces, you are justifying more auto traffic. People self select. If they don't have or need a car, they will find a place to live where they don't have to pay for a parking spot. If someone has a car and needs to use it every day, they will find a place to live that has parking, and they will pay the additional cost for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area.

There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?

The people who would live in these buildings would probably not be car owners, so the traffic concerns are unwarranted, particularly for a street that is already begrimed with traffic. Suburban traffic, which will only get worse because we are pushing people to live further out with cars rather than closer in without cars.

Ha! A new building opened a block away, on Wisconsin Ave. The developer claimed that all the Millenials don't drive, take Uber, transit, bikeshare, etc, and as a result provided few off-street parking spaces for the project. Guess what? It turns out that millenials do drive and do park their cars. On the already overcrowed side streets. Many of those cars don't even have DC plates but they got residential stickers anyway. So, yes, traffic concerns with added density are warranted.

BS. I drive to Tenleytown all of the time and am always able to find a parking spot. Always.

Commuting to Tenley isn't the same as living here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way to figure it out in the big city is to ensure that added density pays for the external costs and impacts it adds. In other words, more off-street parking spots, not fewer. More aggressive traffic calming like they do it in MD to keep added traffic on the main roads and not the neighborhood streets. It's common sense.

More off street parking spots do nothing but house more cars which is traffic. If you want to relieve traffic, then house fewer cars and do more mass transit and transit sharing like zip cars and Capita Bikeshare.

When you argue for more parking spaces, you are justifying more auto traffic. People self select. If they don't have or need a car, they will find a place to live where they don't have to pay for a parking spot. If someone has a car and needs to use it every day, they will find a place to live that has parking, and they will pay the additional cost for it.

This has certainly been the Greater Greater Washington/Smart Growth experiment hype, er... hypothesis, but the outcome so far suggests that the lab rats haven't read the memo.