Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

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.

If they are affordable units, then it is highly probably that the residents couldn't afford to own, maintain and insure a car. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

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.

Then you live in a bubble.

[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.

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.

What does Shaw have that Tenleytown doesn't have that requires runs to the suburbs? I mean, we have our own tile store, container store, target and hardware store!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Citation?

[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

Do you own or rent?

Oh here comes the "renters are not vested in our community" BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

OH, THE HUMANITY!

[Anonymous]

GGW lackey has logged on apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

OH, THE HUMANITY!

Trenchant reply. Where are all these kids going to go to school? Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- from the urbanist crowd to address this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

OH, THE HUMANITY!

Trenchant reply. Where are all these kids going to go to school? Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- from the urbanist crowd to address this issue.

With your kids. Oh the horror.

If there is overcrowding, then push for boundaries to be redone so half-empty schools are better utilized. Or better yet, just eliminate the by right boundary schools and let the whole thing be lottery the way other cities do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

OH, THE HUMANITY!

Trenchant reply. Where are all these kids going to go to school? Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- from the urbanist crowd to address this issue.

With your kids. Oh the horror.

If there is overcrowding, then push for boundaries to be redone so half-empty schools are better utilized. Or better yet, just eliminate the by right boundary schools and let the whole thing be lottery the way other cities do it.

There are no half-empty schools anywhere near this location. They're all over capacity, and no amount of boundary fiddling will change that: You're just taking kids from one overcrowded school and putting them in another overcrowded school. That's not a solution, that's just rearranging the deck chairs.

All-city lottery has been a failure everywhere and would decimate DCPS because the highest-achieving students would simply leave. San Francisco, for instance, is getting rid of it because it created more inequity instead of less.

[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.

Communities outside Ward 3 have plenty of developers trying to build there, so I don't know that I agree that "the hard work is investing" there. I don't really have an opinion as to whether everyone should live in my neighborhood, and I don't really go to cocktail parties. I certainly don't think anyone needs my permission to move here, but I do think my neighborhood should have more options so that people who want to live here can. You seem to think it'd be better to keep all the housing in the area very expensive, as long as people here are investing (?) in other parts of the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you own or rent?

Oh here comes the "renters are not vested in our community" BS.

So you rent then. And home ownership means taxes - which support everything in the community - schools, roads, etc. Renting? No.

[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?

You don't actually live in AU Park. Unless you're renting a basement for the summer from a SFH owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"backing" her most important campaign donors =/= this zoning change will actually see the light of day. Sorry W3Vision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Pretty much all of Wards 7 and 8. The land of light industry, 2-story garden complexes and surface parking lots.