Reply to First Johnson's, now Sullivan's! Who is the landlord behind this?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "First Johnson's, now Sullivan's! Who is the landlord behind this? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.[/quote]

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.[/quote]
It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly. [/quote]

"You guys" who?[/quote]
DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up. [/quote]

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?[/quote]
This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away. [/quote]

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.[/quote]

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill.  But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing.  I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”[/quote]

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong.  DCUSA is fugly.  Even the name is so 80s/90s.  But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop.  The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts.  Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park.  All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops..  When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.[/quote]

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.  [/quote]

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?[/quote]

All of Tenley and Van Ness?  Probably not, though greater density than exits should be permitted.  Within a couple of blocks of the metro stations?  Absolutely.

I understand that many people think the sole purpose of metrorail is to get people form sleepy suburban communities (including suburban communities within the DC borders) downtown to work, but that's an outdated view that doesn't take into account the massive investment the region has made, and continues to make, in metrorail.  [/quote]

But then under this logic, shouldn't developers have to pay a surtax or a special assessment tor the right to build taller and denser projects within x distance of the Metro?  A user feel of sorts and sharing the upside realized by the developer to support the "massive investment in Metro."  That revenue stream should be dedicated to Metro and public transit.  But that might reduce developer margins, so Bowser, etc. would never support that.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics