Muriel Bowser and Developers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To add, if that is the case, then let's just close ALL of the streets to cars and just let buses, bikes and taxis use them. Why should some streets get closed off while others aren't? Who chooses which streets are to be closed or limited?

The Federal Highway Administration has something called the functional classification of streets that most all states and other jurisdictions follow. So, for example, Wisconsin Avenue and River Road (outside the DC line) are considered major arterials. River Rd inside DC is a minor arterial. Arterials are designated to carry through traffic. Some streets are "collectors", meaning that they collect and distribute traffic between arterial streets and "local" streets. Local streets are the lowest street classification, intended to carry traffic to and from destinations on those streets. They are typically residential, often narrower, what one thinks of as "neighborhood streets." The streets in Chevy Chase Village and most side streets in AU Park, Cleveland Park, CC DC, etc. are classified as "local streets." Many local transportation departments decide that strong traffic calming measures are warranted when local streets start to carry much higher traffic than they were intended to, especially when they become cut-through routes for commuters. These measures can include one-way designations, full or partial diverters, etc. to discourage through traffic and keep it on the arterial ways. Speed humps are often used, but these work mostly just to slow down traffic speed, not move traffic volume back to the arterials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thats great, River Road already did this and look at the negative impacts everywhere else. I am not a fan of closing public space off so it is just for private use. It selfishly disrupts the entire transportation flow.

You mean like Fenty and now Bowser have tried to do with "public private partnerships" involving public assets in sweetheart deals with politically connected develoopers?

I was deriding the Bowser decision on Franklin school. That is where this thread started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Federal Highway Administration has something called the functional classification of streets that most all states and other jurisdictions follow. So, for example, Wisconsin Avenue and River Road (outside the DC line) are considered major arterials. River Rd inside DC is a minor arterial. Arterials are designated to carry through traffic. Some streets are "collectors", meaning that they collect and distribute traffic between arterial streets and "local" streets. Local streets are the lowest street classification, intended to carry traffic to and from destinations on those streets. They are typically residential, often narrower, what one thinks of as "neighborhood streets." The streets in Chevy Chase Village and most side streets in AU Park, Cleveland Park, CC DC, etc. are classified as "local streets." Many local transportation departments decide that strong traffic calming measures are warranted when local streets start to carry much higher traffic than they were intended to, especially when they become cut-through routes for commuters. These measures can include one-way designations, full or partial diverters, etc. to discourage through traffic and keep it on the arterial ways. Speed humps are often used, but these work mostly just to slow down traffic speed, not move traffic volume back to the arterials.

And I support almost all of these measures, except for actually closing the streets, as was done in Chevy Chase, MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly protecting the federal core is a lofty and worthwhile goal. Why do we need height limits on Minnesota Avenue, or Ft. Totten or Friendship Heights?

Friendship Heights would be about the last place for tall buildings. It's one of the highest points in DC. Moreover, the area can't support the density of a true office center. There's one Metro stop but major highways (like the Beltway or 270) are several miles away. By contrast, Rosslyn, north Bethesda, Ballston, etc. have both good public transit and easy nearby access to major highways. (I won't mention Tyson's because that's in a whole different league.) If Friendship Heights became a a dense, tall employment center, workers would have to reach it over the street network. I guess that you can blame the Committee of 100 for the fact that 270 doesn't cut next to Bethesda and FH as was originally planned.

Washington, DC has plenty of land that is ripe for (re)-development. Just look at the NY Avenue corridor, which is only a glimmer now in developer eyes.

The NY Avenue is not only a glimmer now, it is actively under development. Go check out the Hechts warehouse, where a MOM's Organic Market is now open, and more retail is on the way, and residences will open soon. Douglas Development owns lots of property for the next few miles up that corridor.

Anyway there are definitely places in DC where additional height would be no problem - in Capital Riverfront, in the SW waterfront, and especially the are called south of the mall which is going to be redeveloped as the SW EcoDistrict.

[jsteele]

Get back to the topic of the thread, the Washington Post Editorial Board weighed in on the Franklin School project today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pulling-the-plug-on-franklin-school/2015/02/22/5bbd796e-b879-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html

"D.C. MAYOR Muriel E. Bowser (D) is right to review major economic development decisions made in the final months of her predecessor’s administration. Successful implementation now falls on her shoulders, and the District has learned the hard way the problems of last-minute deals that can’t be undone. The process, though, must be fair, transparent and convincing, conditions that aren’t apparent in the recent decision to change direction in the development of the Franklin School."

snip

"Ms. Bowser needs to revisit this issue. We think she has been unfairly criticized for having an animus to the arts, but her economic development team ought to sit down with the principals of the project in an effort to come up with workable solutions — or explain why there are none. A failure to try will send an unfortunate message about what can be expected from this new administration."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Get back to the topic of the thread, the Washington Post Editorial Board weighed in on the Franklin School project today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pulling-the-plug-on-franklin-school/2015/02/22/5bbd796e-b879-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html

"D.C. MAYOR Muriel E. Bowser (D) is right to review major economic development decisions made in the final months of her predecessor’s administration. Successful implementation now falls on her shoulders, and the District has learned the hard way the problems of last-minute deals that can’t be undone. The process, though, must be fair, transparent and convincing, conditions that aren’t apparent in the recent decision to change direction in the development of the Franklin School."

snip

"Ms. Bowser needs to revisit this issue. We think she has been unfairly criticized for having an animus to the arts, but her economic development team ought to sit down with the principals of the project in an effort to come up with workable solutions — or explain why there are none. A failure to try will send an unfortunate message about what can be expected from this new administration."

I don't think that Bowser necessarily has an animus toward the arts. But she does seem to have a soft spot for doing the bidding of her political cronies and contributors.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday's Post editorial was very critical of Bowser's handing of this whole matter.