Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council Member Mary Cheh (Ward 3) added a late amendment to the Comprehensive Plan rewrite that the DC Council recently passed. The amendment raises the Future Land Use Map designation for the SW corner of Wisconsin & Albemarle to "medium density", which enables up-zoning to permit a 9 or 10 story building. The plan is to add dense multifamily housing, including some affordable housing units, on top of the Tenleytown library, with entrance access to Albemarle Street behind the library, over a small portion of the east side of the Janney playground. When the library was built, its structure was reinforced for possible additional stories to be added later. If they build a number of the new units for families, it would be a huge bonus to have Janney so close.

Medium density does not get you to a 9 or 10 story building (only 65 feet) and there is no plan or proposal to build anything at the moment so you have no idea where any entrance would be or what the mix of housing units would be.

Also this change to the Future Land Use Map also applied to the adjacent St Ann's school and large surface parking lot which are much more likely to see re-development than the Tenley Library which is pretty small though if you combined them you could really do something creative.

It is a poorly designed library so I would not be heartbroken if the entire thing were replaced.

This is incorrect. You must be thinking of "moderate" density which can result in a 65' building, not "medium" density which Cheh pushed through. Under two of the possible zones available under the medium density classification, MU-8 allows a building height of 90' (70' plus a habitable top "penthouse" floor of 20'), or a total of 8 stories MU-10 allows building height of 110' (90' plus a 20' penthouse). If a market-rate building is constructed with additional inclusive zoning (IZ) units, height can be up to 110' feet (90' plus a 20' penthouse floor). A building of 10-11 stories would be pretty tall in Tenleytown and surely would cast a long shadow over the school playground.

Fortunately, children are not solar-powered, so I don't think we even have to contemplate opposing needed housing because the building would cast a shadow on (part of) the school playground.

10 or 11 story buildings are out of proportion to Tenleytown, especially next to the school. What is "Tysons Mary" Cheh thinking?!

I don't care if they're "out of proportion," they're a good way to make it easier for more people to afford to live in the neighborhood.

This seems like a talking point from the developer lobby, Ward 3-Trump-Manafort Vision.

[Anonymous]

I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad to see this happening, and my kids attend Janney (and one of them will be there for a while). We can’t claim to care about equity broadly and then oppose new housing because it might add one or two kids to our children’s classrooms.

The Janney district likely will be cut back anyway with some in-Janney areas shifted to other schools. The enrollment issue will be taken care of that way.

Personally, I'd probably rather they just kept the boundaries as they are -- better to walk my kids to an overcrowded school nearby than have to drive them to a less crowded one a little farther from our house.

Adding affordable housing in Tenleytown is a desirable goal, but John Eaton would be a better fit than Janney as a school assignment for new residents. DCPS plans to add additional services for at-risk children at Eaton because it is the designated school for the Ward 3 family homeless shelter.

It sounds like a stretch to build an apartment building that literally extends over the Janney playground and not make those residents in bounds for Janney...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad to see this happening, and my kids attend Janney (and one of them will be there for a while). We can’t claim to care about equity broadly and then oppose new housing because it might add one or two kids to our children’s classrooms.

Teacher here. Adding one or two more kids to a classroom that’s already crowded is crazy-making for all. This is not insignificant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

I just laugh when I here people say there's no room in Ward 3. Have you never been to another city like New York? Or another part of DC like Shaw? Ward 3 has plenty of room for growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

Not sure why we can’t both “improve resources,” whatever you mean by that, elsewhere anc also build low-income housing in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Cheh would not have introduced a last-minute amendment to the CompPlan bill increase the density of thissite, if there wasn’t a developer already whispering in her ear and scratching her back to do so. My bet is that a developer will propose another 8 floors of market rate, upscale flats on top of the library, and will offer to like 15%-20% of IZ units. Although IZ is not truly affordable hiding, Cheh and Bowser will cheer this sweetheart deal as a boon for housing affordability in Ward 3. They will need to use some of Janney’s property for an entrance, and for loading/trash access.

[Anonymous]

My thoughts on this are… if you want green, and no traffic, move to Potomac (or at least further away from the metro). Cities are dense. And they change. Putting a bunch of apartments above a metro station is literally the least shocking thing I’ve ever heard.

[Anonymous]

Where are the No River School protestors? How many additional cars will be in the neighborhood daily with this proposal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

I just laugh when I here people say there's no room in Ward 3. Have you never been to another city like New York? Or another part of DC like Shaw? Ward 3 has plenty of room for growth.

As do the least serviced Wards in the city. Plenty of affordable growth - for a range of income levels. Lots of lip service to affordable housing but no commitment to serving communities that need investment. Your analogy to NYC is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Oh yes. Another low income in my backyard please! Person. In Ward 3! Let’s not improve resources in other parts of the city that have room to build up. What sense would that make when we can jam folks into Ward 3!

But you all pushed the original residents of W3 out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Wisconsin Ave across from the metro on city-owned land is a great place to increase density. I am not worried about shadows on a playground. Considering how climate change I think more and more playgrounds are going to wind up putting up sunshades or covers like you see in AZ, FL, and other hot states anyway.

Cool! An 11 floor sunshade for Janney. How much of the playground will be forefeited for the tower entrance on Albermarle St, as the entrance to residences will have to be separate from the library space? Is such a sacrifice worth it if the tower is only 20 percent “inclusive zoning” amd 80 percent market rate? This ratio would strike most people as a giveaway of public assets to a developer. Should the trade off of some of the playground only happen if the tower is truly affordable (ie, all affordable units, no market rate and a substantial number truly affordable - no more than 40 percent AMI versus the much higher current DC standard of 80 percent AMI)?

I’d strongly prefer for new housing construction in Ward 3 to be entirely low-income and city-owned. So if this is supposed to be some sort of horrible “what if it’s all low-income!” scenario, it doesn’t change my mind about that site being a good spot for new housing. But I think you’re getting ahead of yourself a bit in imagining how much of the playground is going to be “sacrificed” for a building that no plan has been introduced for.

Cheh would not have introduced a last-minute amendment to the CompPlan bill increase the density of thissite, if there wasn’t a developer already whispering in her ear and scratching her back to do so. My bet is that a developer will propose another 8 floors of market rate, upscale flats on top of the library, and will offer to like 15%-20% of IZ units. Although IZ is not truly affordable hiding, Cheh and Bowser will cheer this sweetheart deal as a boon for housing affordability in Ward 3. They will need to use some of Janney’s property for an entrance, and for loading/trash access.

+1. Money talks - BS walks. It will be touted as affordable housing and Bowser will have her photo op. Deeper dig - developer renting out majority of units for 500K plus and the term of affordable will be limited to when tax credits lapse.
Folks who continuously embrace the Ward 3 build up don’t read the fine print.