Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Or perhaps it says more about you than reality.

I don't have a car either...

So what’s your point? Anecdotes are just that.

There’s also a difference between living in Shaw without a car and living in Tenleytown, where you will be running a lot of errands in the suburbs just like all the people who own houses in that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And if people wanted to live in a dense area like NY or Shaw they'd've moved there instead of here.

I’m not sure we have a choice anymore given the alarming climate change statistics. More density in areas accessible to bus and metro make sense. It is not about you and me anymore

Didn’t one of the directors of the smart growth lobby, Ward 3 Vision, work for Donald Trump, the anti-climate president? So please, spare us the cynical BS about how densifying AU Park is about saving the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi GGW! Did you know: not every person can afford to live in every and any neighborhood?

I own a house in the neighborhood and my kids go to Janney, and I am the PP who said I don't care about proportion if it makes it easier for more people to be able to afford to live here. You're right that not every person can afford to live in every and any neighborhood, but I don't see why we should let architectural proportion (of a library, which fronts onto a major artery) be an excuse for preventing development that would help change that a little bit. Or do you think that not every person SHOULD be able to afford to live in our neighborhood?

This is your mindset to make your feel all virtuous. The hard work is investing in communities beyond ward 3. Get out a little. I can imagine you at a cocktail party: oh! Everyone should live in my neighborhood! I love affordable housing! Look at me - so kind to the poor folks as I deem them worthy of my neighborhood. No skin off your nose- but you sound so awesome ! So Fake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi GGW! Did you know: not every person can afford to live in every and any neighborhood?

I own a house in the neighborhood and my kids go to Janney, and I am the PP who said I don't care about proportion if it makes it easier for more people to be able to afford to live here. You're right that not every person can afford to live in every and any neighborhood, but I don't see why we should let architectural proportion (of a library, which fronts onto a major artery) be an excuse for preventing development that would help change that a little bit. Or do you think that not every person SHOULD be able to afford to live in our neighborhood?

This is your mindset to make your feel all virtuous. The hard work is investing in communities beyond ward 3. Get out a little. I can imagine you at a cocktail party: oh! Everyone should live in my neighborhood! I love affordable housing! Look at me - so kind to the poor folks as I deem them worthy of my neighborhood. No skin off your nose- but you sound so awesome ! So Fake.

They aren't saying their permission is needed because it's not. I'd rather this, than those who are NOT supporting and have a racist or classist agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Or perhaps it says more about you than reality.

I don't have a car either...

So what’s your point? Anecdotes are just that.

I'm saying you're not always right. Sorry that flew over your head.

[Anonymous]

Many times "affordable housing" translates to 1 bedrooms and studios; families never see these units, just singles. Wouldn't worry much about there being a flood of IB kids at Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many times "affordable housing" translates to 1 bedrooms and studios; families never see these units, just singles. Wouldn't worry much about there being a flood of IB kids at Janney.

It would be amazing if they did 2/3 BR apts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many times "affordable housing" translates to 1 bedrooms and studios; families never see these units, just singles. Wouldn't worry much about there being a flood of IB kids at Janney.

It would be amazing if they did 2/3 BR apts.

They likely will, all the new apts I've seen have up to 3 bedrooms. Which is why I finally took the leap to find a nice house with my SO, we aren't quite ready to have kids yet but there were tons of families at my old apt complex. The pool, game room, golf area, etc. are now filled with kids and their parents lol. Love kids but they are loud and some families don't clean up after themselves.

[Anonymous]

I live in AU Park and I think the city needs to get rid of the single family house zoning in all of its residential neighborhoods. That would make all of these neighborhoods much more affordable for people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It will literally be steps from the metro. And probably no additional parking spots.

And yet, you can be sure the residents will own cars, especially if they have kids.

There are lots of people with kids in DC who don't have cars. If you make the building market rate, a lot more will have cars than if you make it 30% AMI.

I have 3 kids in DC and know a lot of parents. Do not know even one single parent without a car.

This says more about you than about reality. I live in Shaw and now parents without cars.

Or perhaps it says more about you than reality.

I don't have a car either...

So what’s your point? Anecdotes are just that.

I'm saying you're not always right. Sorry that flew over your head.

Right back at you.
Oh never mind. Over one’s head indeed.

[Anonymous]

Ever lived in neighborhood where everyone else around is richer than you are? It’s not fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ever lived in neighborhood where everyone else around is richer than you are? It’s not fun.

That's why density needs to increase... So it's not just one homogeneous neighborhood with a tiny percentage of lower income people. More density leads to move income diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in AU Park and I think the city needs to get rid of the single family house zoning in all of its residential neighborhoods. That would make all of these neighborhoods much more affordable for people

Do you own or rent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever lived in neighborhood where everyone else around is richer than you are? It’s not fun.

That's why density needs to increase... So it's not just one homogeneous neighborhood with a tiny percentage of lower income people. More density leads to move income diversity

It’s not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And if people wanted to live in a dense area like NY or Shaw they'd've moved there instead of here.

Saying something is impossible is different from saying you don't like it.