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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brutalist architecture has always been ugly

99% of the buildings people claim are Brutalist are not Brutalist. That word has lost all meaning nowadays.

+1

Not to mention, there are quite a few beautiful brutalist buildings in DC, to say nothing of our iconic brutalist metro stations. It's a very good thing indeed that there isn't a Committee of Concerned Citizens Who Are Totally Experts on Architecture who can impose their will on developments.

The small-minded posters on this thread have a provincial view on what constitutes "boring architecture."

FBI building, HUD, DOL... there are many examples of brutalist architecture in DC that's not only boring, but downright butt-ugly.

I like the Canadian embassy. I also liked the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, but...

But, you know, "I like this building"/"I think this building is ugly" is not really a design standard or something that can be implemented as policy.

Case in point. The Canadian Embassy is in fact not an example of Brutalism.

That seems to be more a question of opinion than a question of fact.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/reflecting-on-the-designs-and-legacy-of-architect-and-urban-planner-arthur-erickson-1.5192133
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/arthur-erickson-vancouver
https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/culture-monster-blog/story/2009-05-22/arthur-erickson-and-the-limits-of-architectural-labels

It was built in 1989

it's a cool building. at least they put some thought into the design

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

it sounds like the membership consists of one or two ANC members? How is that different? Sounds like once a building is approved, we do need a design approval committee with training and background. And not seeded with GGW.

These new buildings are really meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

it sounds like the membership consists of one or two ANC members? How is that different? Sounds like once a building is approved, we do need a design approval committee with training and background. And not seeded with GGW.

These new buildings are really meh.

One the government can not approve or deny based on aesthetics. Two for every person who likes a design there are two who hate it. If you want vibrant architecture, remove the height limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

it sounds like the membership consists of one or two ANC members? How is that different? Sounds like once a building is approved, we do need a design approval committee with training and background. And not seeded with GGW.

These new buildings are really meh.

One the government can not approve or deny based on aesthetics. Two for every person who likes a design there are two who hate it. If you want vibrant architecture, remove the height limit.

Sure, we could have weird towers topped with star wars hood ornaments like Shanghai

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

it sounds like the membership consists of one or two ANC members? How is that different? Sounds like once a building is approved, we do need a design approval committee with training and background. And not seeded with GGW.

These new buildings are really meh.

One the government can not approve or deny based on aesthetics. Two for every person who likes a design there are two who hate it. If you want vibrant architecture, remove the height limit.

Sure, we could have weird towers topped with star wars hood ornaments like Shanghai

LOL, we'd get more mediocre sh *, just taller. You just said there are no guarantees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

it sounds like the membership consists of one or two ANC members? How is that different? Sounds like once a building is approved, we do need a design approval committee with training and background. And not seeded with GGW.

These new buildings are really meh.

One the government can not approve or deny based on aesthetics. Two for every person who likes a design there are two who hate it. If you want vibrant architecture, remove the height limit.

Chill out, Bob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

Exactly. The “Urban Lofts at Upton Place” should not be the template for amped up development along Wisconsin Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

Interesting that Upton Place's website positions the development as "Modern, Brand-New Homes in the Idyllic Suburbs of D.C."

Exactly. The “Urban Lofts at Upton Place” should not be the template for amped up development along Wisconsin Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

Interesting that Upton Place's website positions the development as "Modern, Brand-New Homes in the Idyllic Suburbs of D.C."

Exactly. The “Urban Lofts at Upton Place” should not be the template for amped up development along Wisconsin Ave.

Marketing's gonna marketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Even more greenspace will be possible on Pennsylvania Ave NW if the National Capital Planning Commission chooses the Civic Stage model, with "a gracious central pedestrian promenade flanked by a dedicated cycle track and shared travel lanes for cars and transit."

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/11/pennsylvania-avenue-redesign

Unfortunately DC's Connecticut Avenue guidelines and the new Wisconsin study guidelines push new building to the lot lines, with maximum height and density. The result will be that less greenspace will be possible there.

Neither proposal makes any changes to the building restriction lines or required setbacks.

But the underlying premise of this post is equally dumb - there is currently no green space along either of those avenues that redevelopment would change.

I really like the wide set backs on wisconsin (Im a little less familiar with connecticut). And there are trees and plants along the street. I believe that is what people are talking about.

Interesting that Upton Place's website positions the development as "Modern, Brand-New Homes in the Idyllic Suburbs of D.C."

Exactly. The “Urban Lofts at Upton Place” should not be the template for amped up development along Wisconsin Ave.

Marketing's gonna marketing.

Wow. Vibrant urban density boasting of its suburban environment. Simply priceless.

[Anonymous]

This from behind picture is funny--

are all those people scrabbling about on the sort of marshy entrance to Archbold Glover?

https://wtop.com/business-finance/2021/01/upton-place-to-break-ground-in-cathedral-heights/

[Anonymous]

Cleveland Park was always designed as a "streetcar suburb." It was never intended to have downtown density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park was always designed as a "streetcar suburb." It was never intended to have downtown density.

Cleveland Park was always designed as a "streetcar suburb." It was never intended to have personal automobiles.