Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Reply to "Big GDS news"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Don't know enough to say who is most deeply concerned about overdevelopment, but the concern is broad. Overdevelopment hurts the entire Janney/Deal/Wilson area and the traffic impacts almost as wide an area. There is room for more development on Wisconsin Ave. right above the Tenley station with lots of single story property if the market supports development. I do hope, though, that the city can find a way to make developers pay for neighborhood improvements to support the additional density. Anyone know how the city deals with of right development which adds density?[/quote] Here's your answer. Not very well. In theory (and sometimes in past practice), PUD developers were supposed to provide or fund longterm community amenities to offset the impacts of the added density and height that they won beyond what zoning would have given them. Sometimes the amenities were ok -- single building condo PUDS in Columbia Heights provided community theaters, new playgrounds, etc. But in recent years, developer lawyers and consultants have been able to get the zoning board to demand next to nothing. First, the developer will come in and claim the project itself is the amenity. Perhaps this could be so in a traditional food desert like Ward 8, but not in adding more retail in Upper NW. Or the developer will claim that the landscaping and other features to market the project are the amenities. Or the developer will just whittle the amenity package down. Look for example, at the two-block project Cathedral Commons just south of Tenleytown. The developer successfully claimed the few 'affordable' housing units required by DC law as a 'bonus amenity' in the PUD. The local ANC wanted a traffic mitigation escrow of $500K, but the developer successfully got it cut to $100K, enough to fund a handful of speed humps. Today, the only lasting "amenity" that one can see from the project is a circular planter with a little tree sticking out of it at the corner or Wisconsin and Idaho. There's a bench that surrounds it. Look for it when you drive by. This is how DC deals with projects that win added density. A cautionary tale.[/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