Sidwell Construction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

So what is the plan to get all those kids to and from GDS in a community-friendly way? Where will all their sports teams practice? Will GDS kids still park cars in the neighborhood alleys to smoke pot during lunch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

So what is the plan to get all those kids to and from GDS in a community-friendly way? Where will all their sports teams practice? Will GDS kids still park cars in the neighborhood alleys to smoke pot during lunch?

I believe that within 5 years of the new building opening, every non-carseat student will end up having to carpool, bus or take public transportation. Can't say the same for Sidwell's transportation plan.

[Anonymous]

Five years is not very community-friendly. Where are all the cars going to idle in the pick up line? Will the MS kids still get to practice their sports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Five years is not very community-friendly. Where are all the cars going to idle in the pick up line? Will the MS kids still get to practice their sports?

Five years is a lot better than Sidwell's current plan of "never". The middle school kids will practice their sports on the new field they are building. As for idling, there won't be any more than there is in the aggregate now between the two campuses - if you want to see real idling, just drive south on Wisconsin Avenue in the morning and look at the block of cars waiting to make a left turn into Sidwell's garage queue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five years is not very community-friendly. Where are all the cars going to idle in the pick up line? Will the MS kids still get to practice their sports?

Five years is a lot better than Sidwell's current plan of "never". The middle school kids will practice their sports on the new field they are building. As for idling, there won't be any more than there is in the aggregate now between the two campuses - if you want to see real idling, just drive south on Wisconsin Avenue in the morning and look at the block of cars waiting to make a left turn into Sidwell's garage queue.

So they have enough room for another regulation soccer field? And they will be idling on the street? Will left turns be allowed at the River Rd entrance to the garage so traffic backs up on River Rd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five years is not very community-friendly. Where are all the cars going to idle in the pick up line? Will the MS kids still get to practice their sports?

Five years is a lot better than Sidwell's current plan of "never". The middle school kids will practice their sports on the new field they are building. As for idling, there won't be any more than there is in the aggregate now between the two campuses - if you want to see real idling, just drive south on Wisconsin Avenue in the morning and look at the block of cars waiting to make a left turn into Sidwell's garage queue.

Wait for Wegman’s to open across the street from Sidwell. Wegman’s is destination retail and the traffic will be horrendous. Sidwell parents will have to line up 10 hours in advance to get in the Sidwell garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of the particulars, it does seem that GDS is moving forward to the next level. Sidwell seems stuck in an era of stagnation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

Has anyone yet calculate the impact on global warming from all of the hot air emitted by GDS and its boosters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

Has anyone yet calculate the impact on global warming from all of the hot air emitted by GDS and its boosters?

Witty comeback, but it's telling that nobody disputes the substantive point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

What real steps? What are they doing to alleviate the imminent increased burden on the immediate community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

What real steps? What are they doing to alleviate the imminent increased burden on the immediate community?

Requiring that all students commuting by car ride in a vehicle with at least two students in it isn't a real step?

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

Actually, it is the opposite. GDS spent years trying to get the Martens site through, with ranocr and mistrust felt from the community. Sidwell worked closely with the neighbors and got a unanimous BZA plan on the first try. The plans changed because of the purchases, but there is no reason to believe the school and community cannot work together to arrive at a similar result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

This is not exactly true. When Sidwell got permission from the BZA a few years ago for the original campus plan (lower school moving to Washington home), it was an uncontested proceeding. No one filed or testified in opposition to Sidwell before the BZA. Anyone who is familiar with private schools and other institutions getting special exceptions to operate in residential areas knows how very unusual an uncontested proceeding is. GDS, on the other hand, engendered ill will and neighborhood opposition with its plans both to expand the campus and build a “planned unit development.”

That's mostly because the original GDS plan had a wider redevelopment that drew more public attention, and it's a different ANC with a different footprint. It doesn't change the fact that GDS has actually taken real steps to reduce the carbon footprint and congestion caused by their commuting, while Sidwell has not.

What real steps? What are they doing to alleviate the imminent increased burden on the immediate community?

Requiring that all students commuting by car ride in a vehicle with at least two students in it isn't a real step?

LOL

The transit-oriented, mixed-use PUD proposed by GDS is also significant. Vibrant new urbanism is an important way to fight climate change.