Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[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

Yes thank you! Good to hear people like you exist in AU Park. What do you think the general consensus is out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes thank you! Good to hear people like you exist in AU Park. What do you think the general consensus is out there?

I’m not sure. It doesn’t come up much but all my friends in the neighborhood seem fine with increased density. We dread any more banks moving into Tenley though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must not have many friends, uppity people tend to attract Karens and other undesirables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes thank you! Good to hear people like you exist in AU Park. What do you think the general consensus is out there?

Sounds like the spokesman for Ward 3 Developers’ Vision is at it again. Go back to the Trump campaign!

[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

Like City Centre, the Wharf and the Navy Yard?! And dense City Ridge will be so income diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DC is not going to eliminate SFH zoning per se. But Bowser is backing “gentle density” under which developers also will be able to build up to 8-unit, 4 story multifamily buildings by matter of right in AU Park and other SFH neighborhoods within a half mile of Wisconsin Ave. This s likely to accelerate tear downs.

[Anonymous]

I don't have an opinion on this particular project, but it's amazing how much time developers spend posting on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The 2/3 bedrooms will not be the apartments reserved for the affordable housing quota. Trust me. It's always the 1 br and the studios that are reserved for the quotas.

Again, there won't be a flood of kids at Janney due to a new bldg. The only way I could see this was if the entire project was subsidized housing, which normally it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The 2/3 bedrooms will not be the apartments reserved for the affordable housing quota. Trust me. It's always the 1 br and the studios that are reserved for the quotas.

Again, there won't be a flood of kids at Janney due to a new bldg. The only way I could see this was if the entire project was subsidized housing, which normally it isn't.

But it's not just *one* new building. There are at least two massive apartment complexes going up just down the street (the Wegmans project and the parcel immediately north of it). Kids will live there, and they'll have to go to school somewhere. But ask GGW types about how DCPS will accommodate all these kids and you get a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in reply. They clearly don't care about it, only that wealthy white people like themselves have more places to live in Ward 3.

[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.

Yes, let's put all the poors in one school, eventhough the Tenley Library is literally next door to Janney.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Ironic. More housing means more affordable housing which is the goal. The people who are opposing more affordable housing are the ones who want to keep their neighborhood segregated. That is more Trumpian in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 hate to break it to you, but the other parts of the city are already built up. Please tell us where you would put this that provide a more equitable solution for all of our residents?

[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.

And?

[Anonymous]

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

Probably none, because they would be affordable housing units on top of the metro and bus lines.

[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!

But you all pushed the original residents of W3 out.

Who would be getting pushed out by building on top of a library or a parking lot where there are no residents currently?