Housing proposed for Tenley Library/portion of Janney site

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Too bad it can’t be Section 8.

[Anonymous]

I think this is great. As OP said this was always a part of the library building plan. It would be great to see some 2 or 3 bedroom apartments added vs 1br and studios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad it can’t be Section 8.

Any rental housing can be section 8, since DC forbids discriminating based on source of income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is great. As OP said this was always a part of the library building plan. It would be great to see some 2 or 3 bedroom apartments added vs 1br and studios.

It is a good idea, although Janney is overcapacity. They are adding several thousand units already south and north along Wisconsin, 1500 alone at City Ridge/Fannie Mae site and the site immediately next to it. The City Ridge developer is marketing to families with one or two school-age kids, so a not-insubstantial percentage will have students enrolled in DCPS. With Janney, Murch, Mann, Hearst at or above capacity, how will a lot of new students be accommodated?

[Anonymous]

Too many apartments in the area and the schools are already overcrowded!

[Anonymous]

Good to build housing there. Then we will need some new schools (Lord & Taylor and Wardman Park sites seem promising) as well as some boundary, feeder pattern, and lottery changes. But DC shouldn't wait on those to start planning for more affordable housing on city-owned land.

[Anonymous]

I’m good with it. It is a good location for more housing

[Anonymous]

When the library was under design - this was all debated at the time.

Anyone remember where it settled?

[Anonymous]

I’m all for it. It’s a good spot, right near the metro and schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to build housing there. Then we will need some new schools (Lord & Taylor and Wardman Park sites seem promising) as well as some boundary, feeder pattern, and lottery changes. But DC shouldn't wait on those to start planning for more affordable housing on city-owned land.

The inability of this city to both plan for more housing and plan to handle the effects of more housing on already-overcrowded schools at the same time is astounding. It's like no one can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't we plan for both simultaneously? Instead, the school-crowding question gets hand-waved away by the (mainly childless) GGW types and their for-profit developer benefactors who are spearheading all this.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good to build housing there. Then we will need some new schools (Lord & Taylor and Wardman Park sites seem promising) as well as some boundary, feeder pattern, and lottery changes. But DC shouldn't wait on those to start planning for more affordable housing on city-owned land.

The inability of this city to both plan for more housing and plan to handle the effects of more housing on already-overcrowded schools at the same time is astounding. It's like no one can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't we plan for both simultaneously? Instead, the school-crowding question gets hand-waved away by the (mainly childless) GGW types and their for-profit developer benefactors who are spearheading all this.

The new Comprehensive Plan amendments, pushed by the mayor and backed by Mary Cheh, weaken the former requirement that the zoning commission (or BZA) consider critical infrastructure like school capacity before approving significant development.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.