So much for "vibrant" --boring apt. building architecture going up right and left on the Avenues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

Yes, but that's because the property market crashes due to over supply. Which is presumably something we don't want.

Another novel economic idea, where there are only two possible options: 1. shortage 2. oversupply

Also, who is this "we" who presumably doesn't want lower prices? There are a lot of people who would be very happy to have lower prices.

[Anonymous]

When I bought my house in DC, the city was in steep decline, as it is now, and prices were low, as they soon will be. I bought it even though my friends said I was crazy to settle in DC. I was lucky -- the city became safer, the schools got better, and home values rose. Now I am the person telling my own kids not to settle here because of schools and crime. Maybe there will be another upswing. I certainly hope so. For now though, I think there will be an oversupply of expensive apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

Yes, but that's because the property market crashes due to over supply. Which is presumably something we don't want.

Another novel economic idea, where there are only two possible options: 1. shortage 2. oversupply

Also, who is this "we" who presumably doesn't want lower prices? There are a lot of people who would be very happy to have lower prices.

This is moronic.

A property value crash would severely harm the city as a whole in the short and medium term. It is the city's largest source of revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

Yes, but that's because the property market crashes due to over supply. Which is presumably something we don't want.

Another novel economic idea, where there are only two possible options: 1. shortage 2. oversupply

Also, who is this "we" who presumably doesn't want lower prices? There are a lot of people who would be very happy to have lower prices.

This is moronic.

A property value crash would severely harm the city as a whole in the short and medium term. It is the city's largest source of revenue.

Gosh, I would have said that people were the city's largest source of wealth, not property. And what do people need? People need housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I bought my house in DC, the city was in steep decline, as it is now, and prices were low, as they soon will be. I bought it even though my friends said I was crazy to settle in DC. I was lucky -- the city became safer, the schools got better, and home values rose. Now I am the person telling my own kids not to settle here because of schools and crime. Maybe there will be another upswing. I certainly hope so. For now though, I think there will be an oversupply of expensive apartments.

If the property owners can't sell them or lease them, then the developers will stop building them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

Yes, but that's because the property market crashes due to over supply. Which is presumably something we don't want.

Another novel economic idea, where there are only two possible options: 1. shortage 2. oversupply

Also, who is this "we" who presumably doesn't want lower prices? There are a lot of people who would be very happy to have lower prices.

This is moronic.

A property value crash would severely harm the city as a whole in the short and medium term. It is the city's largest source of revenue.

Gosh, I would have said that people were the city's largest source of wealth, not property. And what do people need? People need housing.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

[Anonymous]

A Georgist Land Value Tax would solve a lot of the housing problems in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

4000 Wisconsin (now known as the Residences at Upton Place or some such pretentious name) has been moved closer to Wisconsin Avenue. It sticks out like a sore thumb as one walks or drives north on Wisconsin. More cheap-looking "Urbanism" with all of the inspired design of an airport hotel.

I just looked at the Google historic streetview of that block as well as the architectural renderings and I don't think there is any difference in the setbacks - it would frankly be bizarre if there were as it would make no sense for the developer of a commercial property to not build right up the building restriction line.

Two things are confusing you - the previous building had a massive curb cut and large driveway leading to what was a really badly designed circular driveway in the middle of the building along Wisconsin Avenue and there was also a slight step down above the retail facade but the retail entrances look like they are set back the usual 30 feet from the street - there is even a car in the August 2014 streetview that gives you a pretty clear sense of how close the building facade is to the street.

The other kind of obvious thing is that the block and view has been hidden behind a pedestrian walkway for more than 2 years.

Or to put it another way you have no idea how far back the building is set from the curb because you cannot even walk in front of the building yet and see where it is.

Nice try but in this case you are completely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Georgist Land Value Tax would solve a lot of the housing problems in DC.

If your long term goal is to turn everyone into renters and eliminate all individually owned land then it would work. Or if your short term goal is to cause a stampede of selling by individuals then it would also work.

It's an interesting theory (only tax land and tax it heavily) but it is one of those ideas that can only happen at the beginning because implementing it would destroy anyone that currently owns a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What services does GGWash provide to the city?

You're right, they don't, I got my wires crossed, and for that I apologize. But they also do not report receiving any money from the city. If you believe they are committing fraud, I strongly encourage you to act as a whistleblower and report them to the IRS.

If, on the other hand, all you have is innuendo, misinformation, hearsay, and lies, I hear the GOP is looking for a new Speaker of the House.

GGW got in hot water with the DC attorney general for their “training” of supportive ANC commissioners.

You mean the training that the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability allowed to happen after all? Sounds like innuendo and misinformation it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"

I'm the OP, and I am also concerned by the other issues being discussed. However, I see it as this relentless, wearying chipping away at the reasons why anyone, at all, regardless of income would want to live here in the first place. Random violence is the base of the hierarchy of needs (safety) and MUST be addressed. But the thoughtful, possibly greed driven, unintended consequences development versus good, thoughtful urban planning development also impacts whether communities ( and the people in them) thrive. As a DC native I hold Columbia Heights as an example. No insult to the residents of Columbia Heights; it's such a cool neighborhood with so much history and so much potential. When metro came in there was a rush of bad development that did not pay off. If they had slowed down and done it better, there wouldn't be empty big box eyesores next to metro. What I see is that replicating everywhere; the developers build mediocre, profitable whatever. The neighborhood is left holding the bag when they're long gone. It's a problem for those of us who love this town.

In 50 years, if humanity is still alive on the planet, people will be wanting to designate some of these buildings as historic, and get extremely upset about proposals to demolish them and replace them with something else.

Sure, and some they should. Take brutalism. 50+ years later, I find it architecturally interesting as you say. However, it's really difficult to retrofit and maintain $$. Guess which large federal agency has been using this as an excuse to pack its bags and move? I would love to see it preserved, but developers want to knock it down of course.

As to demolishing and replacing--knocking down a huge building to build another huge building is environmentally unfriendly carbon-wise. I'm shocked they didn't try to preserve/repurpose at least some of the elements of the previous structures at City Ridge and Mazza. Since the new buildings are boring, 50 years from now the feeling will likely be impassivity. Have you ever been to a city with a mixture of historical and innovative architecture? Missed opportunity here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

4000 Wisconsin (now known as the Residences at Upton Place or some such pretentious name) has been moved closer to Wisconsin Avenue. It sticks out like a sore thumb as one walks or drives north on Wisconsin. More cheap-looking "Urbanism" with all of the inspired design of an airport hotel.

I just looked at the Google historic streetview of that block as well as the architectural renderings and I don't think there is any difference in the setbacks - it would frankly be bizarre if there were as it would make no sense for the developer of a commercial property to not build right up the building restriction line.

Two things are confusing you - the previous building had a massive curb cut and large driveway leading to what was a really badly designed circular driveway in the middle of the building along Wisconsin Avenue and there was also a slight step down above the retail facade but the retail entrances look like they are set back the usual 30 feet from the street - there is even a car in the August 2014 streetview that gives you a pretty clear sense of how close the building facade is to the street.

The other kind of obvious thing is that the block and view has been hidden behind a pedestrian walkway for more than 2 years.

Or to put it another way you have no idea how far back the building is set from the curb because you cannot even walk in front of the building yet and see where it is.

Nice try but in this case you are completely wrong.

it could be due to the large driveway, arches and irregular facade that the old building did not have as much of an 'encroaching' present. The new is very blockish, and the color scheme is weirdly dark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

The PP mentioned layers of street trees. That is green space.

What layers of street trees? Can the PP (or you) cite a street on DC that has more than 1 layer of street trees?

Funny thing about these posts is they always come from people who drive everywhere and think that complaining about some incidental amount of greenspace will absolve them from any responsibility for their environmentally destructive daily driving.

Pa Ave NW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you except for Mazza Gallerie. I grew up less than a mile away and walked by it almost every day, and that thing looked like a fancy marble prison from the get go which was always part of the problem. And when eventually it was renovated and the windows were added, the tenants were the ones who paid.

I thought it was weird as a kid, but it grew on me over time and the atrium! The atrium was pretty rocking. The whole thing was awesomely 60s. What will go up--little boxes, made of ticky tacky?

Off Wisconsin Ave NW, across from Sidwell Friends, in 2023? No. Four apartment buildings with 690 units total, a bunch of office space, a bunch of retail space, and an underground garage with 1,300 parking spaces.

And for what it's worth, those "little boxes, made of ticky tacky" in Daly City, California, now sell for $1.1 million or more, because the Bay Area has a severe housing shortage, because they made it really difficult to build more housing.

I don't love the design of most of the buildings in the development at the old Fannie Mae site, but the construction seems of better quality. Contrast that with the project rising next door which is mostly constructed of lumber. The design is boring and tacky and it's not even a little set back from Wisconsin. If it lasts 50 years, it will be a surprise.

Why should it be set back from Wisconsin?

Even a small setback from the lot line would have provided room for another layer of street trees. The former building was set back just a little bit. Most buildings in that area have at least modest setbacks which provide a little greenery and light. It avoids the canyon effect that unfortunately one sees on Wisconsin around Macomb.

The setback is exactly what makes Wisconsin ave so pleasant. I'm not sure what developers have against a smidge of openess and green space. Once its gone, its gone.

What are you even talking about?

DC has very generous setback requirements - on Wisconsin Avenue it is 130 feet between the building restriction line on each side of the street which happens to be the tallest building you can put up and there in essence is no way to get around the requirement which is more generous than any other local jurisdiction or city in the Northeast.

The "setback" is not changing for any of these buildings.

Relatedly what greenspace on Wisconsin Avenue are you even referring to?

4000 Wisconsin (now known as the Residences at Upton Place or some such pretentious name) has been moved closer to Wisconsin Avenue. It sticks out like a sore thumb as one walks or drives north on Wisconsin. More cheap-looking "Urbanism" with all of the inspired design of an airport hotel.

I just looked at the Google historic streetview of that block as well as the architectural renderings and I don't think there is any difference in the setbacks - it would frankly be bizarre if there were as it would make no sense for the developer of a commercial property to not build right up the building restriction line.

Two things are confusing you - the previous building had a massive curb cut and large driveway leading to what was a really badly designed circular driveway in the middle of the building along Wisconsin Avenue and there was also a slight step down above the retail facade but the retail entrances look like they are set back the usual 30 feet from the street - there is even a car in the August 2014 streetview that gives you a pretty clear sense of how close the building facade is to the street.

The other kind of obvious thing is that the block and view has been hidden behind a pedestrian walkway for more than 2 years.

Or to put it another way you have no idea how far back the building is set from the curb because you cannot even walk in front of the building yet and see where it is.

Nice try but in this case you are completely wrong.

it could be due to the large driveway, arches and irregular facade that the old building did not have as much of an 'encroaching' present. The new is very blockish, and the color scheme is weirdly dark.

The developer was on bankruptcy for a while and likely has been rebuilding as cheaply as possible. It shows.