Reply to Rosemary's Bistro Blocking Connecticut Avenue

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Rosemary's Bistro Blocking Connecticut Avenue"

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]No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research )  but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant,  or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed. [/quote]

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else. [/quote]

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”?  Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier.  Where would you propose to move that “function”?  To Reno Rd and 34th St?[/quote]

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the [b]streetcar era[/b], or [b]post war[/b], or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

[/quote]

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s.  That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.[/quote]

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle. [/quote]

Are you going back to the 1890’s when streetcars first came to CT Ave?

It is a struggle. Why should the neighborhoods on CT have to give up the amenities on CT Ave so drivers can blaze into the city and then back out to their suburbs and their amenities? Why should the concerns of the car commuters outweigh the concerns of the residents?
[/quote]

Thai is a false tradeoff, particularly now that Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead.  Connecticut can both serve as a principal arterial roadway, provide street parking for customers and restaurant patrons, and have wide sidewalks for pedestrians in the neighborhood commercial strips.[/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