Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

On Wisconsin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s true. Our planners have lost the ability to plan communities with diverse living options. All these new condos look alike and the Wisconsin Ave plan is virtually identical to the Connecticut Avenue plan. No thought. No creativity. No imagination.

If you stripped away single family zoning, there could be all sort of imagination around different size and shape buildings that could house one, two or many families. But when the zoning s either single family OR medium to high density, then you get single family home or multifamily buildings. If you want the "gentle density" that you seem to be pushing for, then that is a different discussion. But you aren't going to get low density on a high impact transportation corridor.

I’m pretty sure that you don’t need to eliminate SFH zoning in order to get the desired mix of density, that’s just lazy planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s true. Our planners have lost the ability to plan communities with diverse living options. All these new condos look alike and the Wisconsin Ave plan is virtually identical to the Connecticut Avenue plan. No thought. No creativity. No imagination.

If you stripped away single family zoning, there could be all sort of imagination around different size and shape buildings that could house one, two or many families. But when the zoning s either single family OR medium to high density, then you get single family home or multifamily buildings. If you want the "gentle density" that you seem to be pushing for, then that is a different discussion. But you aren't going to get low density on a high impact transportation corridor.

I’m pretty sure that you don’t need to eliminate SFH zoning in order to get the desired mix of density, that’s just lazy planning.

Agree. This 'imagination' argument makes little sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They razed some houses at garrison and Wisconsin and rebuilt them into painfully small units, some with only 1-2 windows, some below ground. I looked at a 2 bed/2bath — 700 square feet for $750k. I don’t know if they ever sold, but nothing was gained by razing those houses.

This build was nuts. I know exactly what you are talking about. The one where you can touch the bedroom walls with your arms? I hope they learned a lesson. They should have left/renovated/or built new SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose I question the value of the land because I do not see the demand for all these new apartments and condos. Look at city ridge! Nice development, but not nearly leaded on the residential or commercial side.

City Ridge is not on top of a metro station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose I question the value of the land because I do not see the demand for all these new apartments and condos. Look at city ridge! Nice development, but not nearly leaded on the residential or commercial side.

And with a lot of vacancies still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s true. Our planners have lost the ability to plan communities with diverse living options. All these new condos look alike and the Wisconsin Ave plan is virtually identical to the Connecticut Avenue plan. No thought. No creativity. No imagination.

If you stripped away single family zoning, there could be all sort of imagination around different size and shape buildings that could house one, two or many families. But when the zoning s either single family OR medium to high density, then you get single family home or multifamily buildings. If you want the "gentle density" that you seem to be pushing for, then that is a different discussion. But you aren't going to get low density on a high impact transportation corridor.

I’m pretty sure that you don’t need to eliminate SFH zoning in order to get the desired mix of density, that’s just lazy planning.

Agree. This 'imagination' argument makes little sense.

Well…the whole discussion about townhomes is imaginary…so why not make the entire thread imaginary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They razed some houses at garrison and Wisconsin and rebuilt them into painfully small units, some with only 1-2 windows, some below ground. I looked at a 2 bed/2bath — 700 square feet for $750k. I don’t know if they ever sold, but nothing was gained by razing those houses.

This build was nuts. I know exactly what you are talking about. The one where you can touch the bedroom walls with your arms? I hope they learned a lesson. They should have left/renovated/or built new SFH.

A huge number of similarly sized units is in the pipeline for NoMA and Navy Yard, people don't seem to want them. Many that were planned condos in NoMA have been converted to rentals.

I don't think the demand for such spaces is that high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build 100-200 townhouses in and near upper Wisc, they all would not be $1M plus. EYA tends to be at the higher end. If they can do it at Westbard, it can be done at upper Wisc Avenue.

Pretty sure they would be $1m plus. You want them because they’re attractive to you, and many people will feel the same, so they will have a high value.

I think there is a difference between only a few townhouses and 200 townhouses. I doubt the market demand is there for 200 townhouses at $1.5-$2M. And, even if there were market demand, DC then ends up with a bunch of new rich people living in DC, paying a variety of taxes, or moving out of SFHs allowing others to move into SFHs. Latter is a good thing as well. DC needs the revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build 100-200 townhouses in and near upper Wisc, they all would not be $1M plus. EYA tends to be at the higher end. If they can do it at Westbard, it can be done at upper Wisc Avenue.

Pretty sure they would be $1m plus. You want them because they’re attractive to you, and many people will feel the same, so they will have a high value.

I think there is a difference between only a few townhouses and 200 townhouses. I doubt the market demand is there for 200 townhouses at $1.5-$2M. And, even if there were market demand, DC then ends up with a bunch of new rich people living in DC, paying a variety of taxes, or moving out of SFHs allowing others to move into SFHs. Latter is a good thing as well. DC needs the revenues.

With absolutely no amenities for the neighborhood…sounds terrible.

[Anonymous]

There is a ton of demand for brand new $1.5-$2m townhouses. Are you kidding? A ton.

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with rich people? By the way that’s not rich in DC that’s squarely young professionals or middle class even lms

[Anonymous]

So which is it…imaginary townhomes for rich people or working class?

Note…they are imaginary for both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could easily have mixed density — some tall condo buildings and some townhomes at FH. It’s a big site, and the townhomes would help the transition from the corridor to the neighborhood. I do not favor getting rid of SFH zoning.

Given the underlying value of the land, the townhouses would need to start at 2 million or more. There is zero chance that it is economically feasible to developed "affordable" townhouses in the areas that are being redeveloped. It is really a pointless discussion. Now, if you wanted to do away with single family zoning, then many of the existing houses could be razed for duplexes or rows of townhouses, if parcels were combined and redivided, but that isn't what you are looking for, now, is it?

What is not affordable for the useless commercial properties along and nearby Wisc Avenue, but apparently affordable in the SFH areas a few blocks away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build 100-200 townhouses in and near upper Wisc, they all would not be $1M plus. EYA tends to be at the higher end. If they can do it at Westbard, it can be done at upper Wisc Avenue.

Pretty sure they would be $1m plus. You want them because they’re attractive to you, and many people will feel the same, so they will have a high value.

I think there is a difference between only a few townhouses and 200 townhouses. I doubt the market demand is there for 200 townhouses at $1.5-$2M. And, even if there were market demand, DC then ends up with a bunch of new rich people living in DC, paying a variety of taxes, or moving out of SFHs allowing others to move into SFHs. Latter is a good thing as well. DC needs the revenues.

With absolutely no amenities for the neighborhood…sounds terrible.

There is already plenty of amenities in the area, including several grocery stores, restaurants, etc. And, yes, some commercial activities along Western or Wisc would be fine.