Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young families moving to Chevy Chase care about conserving the wonderful neighborhood, village-in-the-city qualities, too. If they wanted to live in Friendship Heights or Downtown Bethesda, they would have made that choice quite easily; neither one is very far.

Yes, I made the choice as a young family to live in a green, leafy duplex in Ward 3. We made sacrifices--young families also seek a little peace, quiet and trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every renter got the survey. That was made clear last night. The clear sentiment is anti development of the site. Affordable housing was supported but not on that site.

It was a despicable display of naïveté on the part of the ANC who along with the local clergy are being used as pawns in what are classic developer schemes to promise a little and get millions worth of public land for free.The ANC commissioners and their various groups simply do not have the sophistication or the work ethic to stand up to it.

The worst was the opening crying scene from one commissioner going on and on about how hard he’s working while trying to read an edited letter into the record - a letter no one had seen. It was such BS.

They have absolutely no backbone. They have no work ethic. They aren’t smart enough to get proper pro bono counsel and they roll their eyes saying it’s a done deal anyway. It was a shocking display of stupidity. Not only should they be voted out but all of their correspondence with any public or interested party should be shared immediately.

This is the most serious issue to hit the neighborhood in years and they are complaining that they are tired and it’s going to happen anyway . And they are just volunteers They all need to go. They can’t even recognize a crisis when they create one.

Most of them run unopposed, and it is true they basically have no power. ANC’s should either be eliminated or they should actually have some authority, in which case you would get better candidates.

All that said, they really don’t have any obligation to do much other than vote their say however they want. They can be voted out at the end of their term…just like any elected official.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every renter got the survey. That was made clear last night. The clear sentiment is anti development of the site. Affordable housing was supported but not on that site.

It was a despicable display of naïveté on the part of the ANC who along with the local clergy are being used as pawns in what are classic developer schemes to promise a little and get millions worth of public land for free.The ANC commissioners and their various groups simply do not have the sophistication or the work ethic to stand up to it.

The worst was the opening crying scene from one commissioner going on and on about how hard he’s working while trying to read an edited letter into the record - a letter no one had seen. It was such BS.

They have absolutely no backbone. They have no work ethic. They aren’t smart enough to get proper pro bono counsel and they roll their eyes saying it’s a done deal anyway. It was a shocking display of stupidity. Not only should they be voted out but all of their correspondence with any public or interested party should be shared immediately.

This is the most serious issue to hit the neighborhood in years and they are complaining that they are tired and it’s going to happen anyway . And they are just volunteers They all need to go. They can’t even recognize a crisis when they create one.

ANC commissioners are covered by DC's FOIA law. FOIA away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young families moving to Chevy Chase care about conserving the wonderful neighborhood, village-in-the-city qualities, too. If they wanted to live in Friendship Heights or Downtown Bethesda, they would have made that choice quite easily; neither one is very far.

Yes, I made the choice as a young family to live in a green, leafy duplex in Ward 3. We made sacrifices--young families also seek a little peace, quiet and trees.

My family also made a choice to move to an area free from historic district regulations…but I guess that may possibly go out the window…so isn’t everything now fair game?

Those who want a historic district are free to move to Capitol Hill or Georgetown or 35 other districts.

[Anonymous]

My family made the opposite choice -- to live in a historic district. I agree that the city is big enough to have both to give people choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family made the opposite choice -- to live in a historic district. I agree that the city is big enough to have both to give people choices.

The same. We value having a historic district in the neighborhood. And when we renovated and enlarged our house the process was not burdensome at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the beatings will continue at least until next Monday. This ANC should have just ripped the damn band aid off and ended the pain that are meetings here since July. Ugh.

Which ANC? Some of the “Middle Finger” Connecticut Ave commissioners are involving themselves with Chevy Chase DC.

The ANC that is the subject of this thread, are you daft?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question--drove by the Omni in Woodley Park. What on earth is being built in that huge chasm by Oyster School (while we are speaking of development)? Seems like a lot of 're-development' on CT cooridor, geeze!

Omni is on Calvert. You are referring to the former Wardman Marriot site:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/900-apartments-proposed-for-former-wardman-marriott-site/19189

You can see it as you approach the Omni from Calvert. the chasm is massive. How is it that the sentiment persists that there is no housing/development in Ward 3? All is see is housing/development

It could be developed with more density there. Their iare potential housing units left on the table.

Zoning wouldn't allow for more density and the city didn't buy it, so it will have a minima amount of affordable housing units. I think the developers lost an opportunity to extend the Woodley Park commercial area up into the property. Oh well.

DC requires only 8 to 10 percent affordable units even in large developments and then is surprised that progress is so incremental. Other cities require more, even much more. But the DC government is so captive to development interests that it is unlikely that it will raise its baseline mandate. So they just seek more and more market rate apartments and condos in the hope that a few more crumbs of affordable housing will trickle down.

Having seen the voucher mess, I am just fine with less affordable housing. 8 to 10 percent sounds fine. What's funny is that they are building so little for middle income families--just tiny luxury condos. It's like this city doesn't want middle income families or something.

Why do you equate vouchers with affordable housing? They are two different things.

Also, not everyone on vouchers causes problems. Just like there are people not on vouchers who do cause problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young families moving to Chevy Chase care about conserving the wonderful neighborhood, village-in-the-city qualities, too. If they wanted to live in Friendship Heights or Downtown Bethesda, they would have made that choice quite easily; neither one is very far.

Yes, I made the choice as a young family to live in a green, leafy duplex in Ward 3. We made sacrifices--young families also seek a little peace, quiet and trees.

I hope you didn't make that choice believing that how things were when you moved in was how things would be forever. If so, that's an erroneous belief. Even in places that are historic districts. Things change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young families moving to Chevy Chase care about conserving the wonderful neighborhood, village-in-the-city qualities, too. If they wanted to live in Friendship Heights or Downtown Bethesda, they would have made that choice quite easily; neither one is very far.

Yes, I made the choice as a young family to live in a green, leafy duplex in Ward 3. We made sacrifices--young families also seek a little peace, quiet and trees.

I hope you didn't make that choice believing that how things were when you moved in was how things would be forever. If so, that's an erroneous belief. Even in places that are historic districts. Things change.

Why shouldn't Chevy Chase residents be faulted for wanting to retain the best features that attracted to and keep them in the community? The green spaces and canopy that the PP mentioned. The quiet, walkable side streets. The attractive, pedestrian-scale commercial area with neighborhood-focused retail and restaurants. The beautiful historic architecture. Change is constant, even in historic districts as you point out. But historic districts at least provide a process to ensure that infill development is compatible in an overall sense. That's why we support the CC historic district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young families moving to Chevy Chase care about conserving the wonderful neighborhood, village-in-the-city qualities, too. If they wanted to live in Friendship Heights or Downtown Bethesda, they would have made that choice quite easily; neither one is very far.

Yes, I made the choice as a young family to live in a green, leafy duplex in Ward 3. We made sacrifices--young families also seek a little peace, quiet and trees.

I hope you didn't make that choice believing that how things were when you moved in was how things would be forever. If so, that's an erroneous belief. Even in places that are historic districts. Things change.

Why shouldn't Chevy Chase residents be faulted for wanting to retain the best features that attracted to and keep them in the community? The green spaces and canopy that the PP mentioned. The quiet, walkable side streets. The attractive, pedestrian-scale commercial area with neighborhood-focused retail and restaurants. The beautiful historic architecture. Change is constant, even in historic districts as you point out. But historic districts at least provide a process to ensure that infill development is compatible in an overall sense. That's why we support the CC historic district.

Typo correction: Why should CC residents be faulted for wanting to retain these neighborhood features?

[Anonymous]

The number of people who oppose the proposals for redevelopment of the Chevy Chase Community Center, but ALSO oppose the historic district is rather large and very surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family made the opposite choice -- to live in a historic district. I agree that the city is big enough to have both to give people choices.

The same. We value having a historic district in the neighborhood. And when we renovated and enlarged our house the process was not burdensome at all.

+1

The hysteria from the people opposed to historic designation is rather astounding. It really isn't that big of a deal, and frankly, it generally improves the overall quality of home renovations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of people who oppose the proposals for redevelopment of the Chevy Chase Community Center, but ALSO oppose the historic district is rather large and very surprising.

Why? It makes a lot of sense.