Mary Cheh has turned Cleveland Park/Cleveland Park North into her personal political asset

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

[Anonymous]

Hey, Cheh, what do you say? Have DC replant Hearst trees today!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have just taken up tennis. Will there still be free, public courts at Hearst?

UDC, Behind the police station, Chesapeake and Connecticut, Livingstone and 41st, Ft Reno, Turtle Park. Lafayette.

18 courts within 5 minutes that are free of charge and almost never in use.

Have at it!

I didn't realize UDC had public courts. Thanks for the list., I will. Does this mean no tennis at hearst? I was planning to walk there...

Uh...as a tennis player...UDC does not let just anyone play on their courts. Unless of course you are a student at privileged, private school that pays the UDC athletic director money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have just taken up tennis. Will there still be free, public courts at Hearst?

UDC, Behind the police station, Chesapeake and Connecticut, Livingstone and 41st, Ft Reno, Turtle Park. Lafayette.

18 courts within 5 minutes that are free of charge and almost never in use.

Have at it!

I didn't realize UDC had public courts. Thanks for the list., I will. Does this mean no tennis at hearst? I was planning to walk there...

Uh...as a tennis player...UDC does not let just anyone play on their courts. Unless of course you are a student at privileged, private school that pays the UDC athletic director money

UDC is such a corrupt, wasteful joke of a public community college. It would be far more cost effective and better academically for DC to provide UDC students with vouchers to go to better schools like Montgomery College, MD public colleges or VA community colleges. Then redevelop the UDC brutalist campus for housing, including affordable housing, and recreational facilities open to all DC residents. It was a cruel but apt proposal a few years back when some DC council members proposed renaming UDC as Marion Barry University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

In the area, Park Van Ness and the Woodley are newer buildings with impressive architectural detail. The City Ridge development also will be well done. By contrast, CC looks like an airport hotel.

[Anonymous]

Park Van Ness is literally an updated version of the Kennedy Warren. Very attractive exterior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

In the area, Park Van Ness and the Woodley are newer buildings with impressive architectural detail. The City Ridge development also will be well done. By contrast, CC looks like an airport hotel.

Hmmm, I haven't seen that. I don't think CC is hideous though. And I like how they preserved the 'curve' from the old Suntrust bank as well as very wide sidewalks. The interior apartments are very airy/light and will age well. Also a good communal space. It's not the very worst I've seen. I am curious about these other buildings though. Anything that copies the Kennedy Warren is on the right track. Sounds like there has been a ton of development...why is the density crowd not sated???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

In the area, Park Van Ness and the Woodley are newer buildings with impressive architectural detail. The City Ridge development also will be well done. By contrast, CC looks like an airport hotel.

Hmmm, I haven't seen that. I don't think CC is hideous though. And I like how they preserved the 'curve' from the old Suntrust bank as well as very wide sidewalks. The interior apartments are very airy/light and will age well. Also a good communal space. It's not the very worst I've seen. I am curious about these other buildings though. Anything that copies the Kennedy Warren is on the right track. Sounds like there has been a ton of development...why is the density crowd not sated???

Ummm because DC is not very dense and Ward 3 has actually had very little development by DC or even regional standards over the last 30 years.

And there is that whole thing where our planet is roasting and maybe we need to make better land use and energy consumption decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

In the area, Park Van Ness and the Woodley are newer buildings with impressive architectural detail. The City Ridge development also will be well done. By contrast, CC looks like an airport hotel.

Hmmm, I haven't seen that. I don't think CC is hideous though. And I like how they preserved the 'curve' from the old Suntrust bank as well as very wide sidewalks. The interior apartments are very airy/light and will age well. Also a good communal space. It's not the very worst I've seen. I am curious about these other buildings though. Anything that copies the Kennedy Warren is on the right track. Sounds like there has been a ton of development...why is the density crowd not sated???

Ummm because DC is not very dense and Ward 3 has actually had very little development by DC or even regional standards over the last 30 years.

And there is that whole thing where our planet is roasting and maybe we need to make better land use and energy consumption decisions?

Please. There are 1500 new housing units rising on just two blocks of Wisconsin alone. There have been a number of buildings added along Wisconsin Ave, as well as in Chevy Chase/Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, and Woodley. There’s a large development slated for the heart of AU Park. The “smart growther” Arent satiated because they’re basically the echo chamber for real estate developers and speculators who are not satiated. And they especially want windfall profit opportunities they would result from upzoning in Ward 3. As for “climate change,” go ask developers if they are willing to covenant that buyers and tenants will be ineligible for street RPP permits for their cars. They’ll look at you like you’re crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have just taken up tennis. Will there still be free, public courts at Hearst?

UDC, Behind the police station, Chesapeake and Connecticut, Livingstone and 41st, Ft Reno, Turtle Park. Lafayette.

18 courts within 5 minutes that are free of charge and almost never in use.

Have at it!

I didn't realize UDC had public courts. Thanks for the list., I will. Does this mean no tennis at hearst? I was planning to walk there...

Uh...as a tennis player...UDC does not let just anyone play on their courts. Unless of course you are a student at privileged, private school that pays the UDC athletic director money

UDC is such a corrupt, wasteful joke of a public community college. It would be far more cost effective and better academically for DC to provide UDC students with vouchers to go to better schools like Montgomery College, MD public colleges or VA community colleges. Then redevelop the UDC brutalist campus for housing, including affordable housing, and recreational facilities open to all DC residents. It was a cruel but apt proposal a few years back when some DC council members proposed renaming UDC as Marion Barry University

Yep. UDC'S academic operations can and should be consolidated into 1-2 buildings and the campus -- which is a barren wasteland at all times of the day -- should be redeveloped into housing that serves the entire economic spectrum. It would solve Ward 3's housing issues almost single handedly. I honestly can't believe David Alpert and his sycophants haven't caught on to this idea yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Cathedral Commons complex is definitely not in Cleveland Park, which is an historic district and starts on the other wise of Wisconsin Ave. Historic protections and zoning restrictions would have precluded a complex of that height and size and would have required extensive architectural review.

The project took 15 years of red tape and neighborhood pushback including an attempt to landmark what had been there. There is nothing about being in a historic district which would have prevented Cathedral Commons. Look no further than the 14th Street corridor for what is allowed in historic districts.

The reason that it took so long is that Royal Ahol, Giant’s parent that was already reeling from securities fraud charges at the time, breached a 2002 agreement with the city and neighborhood groups to build a new store.

You ignore the original proposal that the neighborhood fought, was in 1999. The store could have been finished in 2001 without the ridiculous arguments that delayed a very modest redevelopment plan.

We wish that the store had been renovated in 1999 only because then at least we wouldn’t have that piece of architectural dreck pretentiously called “Cathedral Commons.” They even use a knockoff Chanel logo in their marketing.

I like Cathedral Commons. I have toured the building. The apartments are attractive. I am not sure why you feel it is dreck. It fits in well with the surrounds.

It is cheap looking, and is not aging well considering that it is still relatively new. Who thought that Romeo-and-Juliet balconies made out of aluminum was smart? And there's too much concrete and not enough greenery.

[Anonymous]

[quote

Please. There are 1500 new housing units rising on just two blocks of Wisconsin alone. There have been a number of buildings added along Wisconsin Ave, as well as in Chevy Chase/Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, and Woodley. There’s a large development slated for the heart of AU Park. The “smart growther” Arent satiated because they’re basically the echo chamber for real estate developers and speculators who are not satiated. And they especially want windfall profit opportunities they would result from upzoning in Ward 3. As for “climate change,” go ask developers if they are willing to covenant that buyers and tenants will be ineligible for street RPP permits for their cars. They’ll look at you like you’re crazy.

DC has added something like 70,000 new housing units in the last 15 years and you can cite a couple of thousand units that have been built or in the process of being built in Ward 3. I can count on two hands the number of residential buildings that have opened along the entire length of Wisconsin Avenue the twenty years I've lived in Upper NW.

Who cares if the developers make money - the person who made my house did so to make money. Same as the person who made your house. It would be a problem if people making housing couldn't make money doing so because housing is sort of an important thing.

And you are oddly ignorant about global warming and how to address it as well as what has happened in Ward 3 - in fact a number of the developers have agreed to prohibit their addresses from being included in the RPP database though why you think that has something to do with global warming is beyond me.

But you think global warming is just about driving, probably because for you driving is the extent of how you think about getting yourself around your privileged corner of DC.

But new housing in close in neighborhoods is about the greenest housing you can build - DC has the greenest housing codes in the country (only CA has more LEED certified buildings) so people who move into this new housing are moving into about the most energy efficient housing being built. People in these buildings own fewer cars, drive the cars they own much less and use transit to a much greater degree than people living in new housing further out.

And having new people in DC supports more public transit, more neighborhood serving retail, more jobs in DC and increases the cities coffers which is why DC has spent so much money the last 10 years on infrastructure and is now sitting on 1.5 billion in the bank.

And the downside to Ward 3 is what exactly? You will have a harder time finding free parking on the street when you drive to FH to shop at Nieman Marcus? You will feel suffocated by seeing a 9 story building? You will be upset that a surface parking lot has been converted to housing?