RIP Johnson's -- Now let's move on

[Anonymous]

AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

AU had me until the last line about market rate rents. They are simply too high for many business. Since AU can set the rest as landlord, then yes I guess I guess I do expect them to subsidize a few neighborhood institutions to a degree. As a fellow neighborhood institution I feel they should take this one for the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

Yes. Let the bulldozers rumble. The neighborhood certainly could use more vibrant-upscale-dense-mixed use-Millennial flats on top of fast-casual concept restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

Yes. Let the bulldozers rumble. The neighborhood certainly could use more vibrant-upscale-dense-mixed use-Millennial flats on top of fast-casual concept restaurants.

Ugh ,that sounds horrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, more multifamily density in Upper Northwest lowers home prices, creates affordable units as part of the development process and furthers more equitable access to Ward 3 schools.

Then they should use that lot to build a new Ward 3 school because there is literally no room in the ones we have and no more room to physically expand any of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

AU had me until the last line about market rate rents. They are simply too high for many business. Since AU can set the rest as landlord, then yes I guess I guess I do expect them to subsidize a few neighborhood institutions to a degree. As a fellow neighborhood institution I feel they should take this one for the team.

The concept of "market rate rents" is that the market sets them, not the landlord.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

Good riddance to Johnson's.

AU had me until the last line about market rate rents. They are simply too high for many business. Since AU can set the rest as landlord, then yes I guess I guess I do expect them to subsidize a few neighborhood institutions to a degree. As a fellow neighborhood institution I feel they should take this one for the team.

The concept of "market rate rents" is that the market sets them, not the landlord.

Uh, we don't have rent price floors in this country. AU is basically acknowledging that it seeks highest and best rent from the property, even if that means the departure of a business that has been serving the local community for decades. By this logic, AU will want to develop the property, and the result will be more pseudo-urban generic retail and fast casual dining. Oh, and certainly we could use another big CVS between Idaho Ave. and Brandywine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU doesn't own any of the buildings that have the fast express food in the neighborhood. Not one of them.

And if you read the letter posted on the neighborhood listserve, it becomes pretty clear that AU wasn't the bad guy in the Johnson's issue.

They own the building that Firelake Grill closed down in with impossible high rents and a bunch of hamburger joints were rumored to be circling. Just sayin

Last time I checked, the fast express places were all in the core Tenley area. Hence not in a property that AU owns. Just sayin.

I have no idea who owns those, only that they seem to be the only 'type' of eating establishment that can hack these rents. And that looks to be the same in the property Au owns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AU is shooting themselves in the foot. Their students and their students families love how tranquil the neighborhood is when they visit, yet has easy access to downtown. When it looks high density and junky I'm. Sure they will swoon less. I hope those 10 confused elderly show up at every new, future AU development proposal with their Johnsons closing sale purchased pitchforks and give them heck. And to Mary Cheh as well for allowing/encouraging this area to be swamped with rapid development-Fannie Mae, Johnsons, pool, sidwell expansion, shelter. The pace is too fast and she has done nothing to up services to correspond to more density. Despite showing up at every block party and parade to "mingle", she is no advocate for ward 3. Just vote her out. This will not be forgotten.

Oh geez please go take your geritol. And maybe see if one of the AU OSHER classes covers basic grammar and punctuation for the elderly?

There has hardly been any development or change in Upper NW so it is unclear what you are talking about - have you been sniffing some of the fertilizer you got at the going out of business sale?

Why a more attractive and vibrant Wisconsin Avenue would be less attractive to AU students than the junky and disjointed version of today is unclear - but do enlighten us since you seem confused yourself - do you like or dislike AU and its students?

I've spoken with AU students and their parents who love the feeling of "suburbs in the city". They can go party on U street or what not, and come home and tuck in among the tree-scape. Frankly, that's why a lot of people choose to live in this area, including young families. There are plenty of developed places in the city to choose from, and AU Park is a nice respite if that's what you're looking for. I gave many examples of recent development projects and proposals, that are on a much more rapid scale than has occurred in this are in the past. Some of it is related to AUs expansion. Nebraska Ave. looks entirely different from ten years ago. Some of it may be coincidence. The Cathedral Commons and library rebuild were a long time in the making, followed by all the proposals I provided. I'm not sure how you missed them, except that you chose to focus on grammar. I don't personally consider somewhat inane message boards like this, where I will interact with folks like you, an art form and will save my editing skills for other spaces and places. Thanks for the feedback though.

Sure you've spoken to lots of AU students and their families - LOL!

Nebraska Ave is much better than it used to be FWIW but you probably favor surface parking lots.

Ward 3, by any metric, has had very little development.

And no doubt you are terrified of the changes coming but as someone who abhors commercial development and seems to think residential development is fantastic you should be ecstatic as both Fannie Mae and 4000 Wisconsin are transitioning from Commercial Office space to residential which will almost certainly result in a net decrease in traffic.

BTW AU students aren't partying on U Street anymore. Which you would know if you'd spoken to an AU student in the last 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don't need a better retail mix. It's super easy to get to gtown, friendship heights dupont or even the burbs for shopping. We have all necessities at a stone's throw. Also the Fannie Mae site will have new retail. If you want a better mix in current space ask AU to lower the rents. Someone told me they were asking 40,000 a month for the fireplake grill location. If that's true, that's the reason you don't have a better mix.

Let me see if I understand this - you think we should all leave the neighborhood and do our shopping and dining elsewhere.

Except for when we need something for the garden - in that case we should not have to leave the neighborhood?

So drive drive drive everywhere.

And then come on here and complain about parking and traffic.

Do you understand the concept of not seeing the forest for the trees? If you don't I'll be glad to explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we need more retail? I find I have pretty easy access to everything I need, and I'm not particularly interested in browsing in shop after shop. Am I an outlier? I'm not opposed to more housing, but I don't really understand this preoccupation with a better retail mix.

A lot of economists (and retailers) believe that the U.S., and this area in particular, is over-retailed already with the Internet displacing many brick and mortar stores for certain purchases. Even restaurants, which can't be duplicated online, are under pressure nationally as competition has increased and customers have other options (some via the Web) to dispose of their food dollars (delivery of food, prepared or ready-to-cook meals, etc.). Locally, developers are seeking rent top dollar because they are highly levered or their investors demand credit tenants. The result is an intensified hunt for the same "vibrant," "upscale" fast-casual chains or retail/restaurant groups with deep balance sheets, even as the local serving businesses that aren't easily replicated on-line get caught in a rent squeeze: Johnsons, a shoe-repair store, an independent restaurant with affordable prices, etc. It would seem crazy to have to drive to the suburbs to buy a flat of plants or mulch, or get a pair of shoes repaired, but that is the direction that we are going in.

Do you buy a lot of plants and get a lot of shoes repaired?

I do those things maybe a total of 2-3 times a year.

I eat out at least once a week.

So the best use of retail space in a neighborhood would be for the rare uses (how much mulch do you buy every year anyhow?) rather than the common ones? And it would make more sense to make lots of trips out of the neighborhood to eat (which is ordinarily a trip one can and should do on foot when it is local) and do fewer trips to a garden center(which is a trip more often done in a car because of the mulch that everyone apparently needs) - you know that makes no sense?

Does vibrancy scare you?

You do realize DC in general and even our neighborhood specifically has a lot of independent restaurants? And that there are multiple old school cobblers in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Move to Columbia Heights or Chinatown or NOMA. You can walk to everywhere you want from the confines of your highrise human filing cabinet.

Me, I like my front, back and side yards, my detached garage, my deck, my driveway with off street parking and being surrounded by nature.

But if being able to walk to overpriced food is a priority for you, by all means, move.

I'm going to be up all night responding to the litany of illogical posts in this thread!

Is someone proposing to replace your front, back and side yards and your detached garage, deck and driveway with a highrise human filing cabinet?

That is big news to me!

You should try walking - you might be less paranoid and delusional!