Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened with the Steak n' egg redevelopment. Was the drawing inspirational or a plan. This is a huge problem that the build build build crowd do not address. They just want approvals and buildings and really do not care about the final products. This looks like a missed opportunity to get a nice building on older block. Instead we got yuck, but 20 rentals. Victory for the density crowd.

They didn't build the larger project that was approved by the BZA and built a smaller matter of right project instead that didn't require any zoning approvals. It's unclear why they did that but they may have preferred the path of least resistance which in part was easier because it didn't require them to deal with meddlesome neighbors.

You just said it was approved, so that doesn't make sense. Sounds like they went the cheaper route and built something unattractive. I'm very surprised that what they did build didn't require any approvals. It's not very nice.

Anonymous wrote:What happened with the Steak n' egg redevelopment. Was the drawing inspirational or a plan. This is a huge problem that the build build build crowd do not address. They just want approvals and buildings and really do not care about the final products. This looks like a missed opportunity to get a nice building on older block. Instead we got yuck, but 20 rentals. Victory for the density crowd.

They didn't build the larger project that was approved by the BZA and built a smaller matter of right project instead that didn't require any zoning approvals. It's unclear why they did that but they may have preferred the path of least resistance which in part was easier because it didn't require them to deal with meddlesome neighbors.

Even NYT signling it's going to be a bloodbath...

What happened with the Steak n' egg redevelopment. Was the drawing inspirational or a plan. This is a huge problem that the build build build crowd do not address. They just want approvals and buildings and really do not care about the final products. This looks like a missed opportunity to get a nice building on older block. Instead we got yuck, but 20 rentals. Victory for the density crowd.

My spouse drove by the Steak n' Eggs development on Wisconsin Ave and says it looks nothing like the BZA-far less attractive, zero charm. So, you know, what's promised and in writing and what's delivered....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

This thread is waaaaayyy too long for that. Can’t believe it’s still going.

That's because you would like the least amount of attention possible called to the Mayor's density moves.

You are responding to someone else but I support increasing density in DC and am glad to discuss it.

But it is BS that the setback requirements are being changed - the accusation has been leveled elsewhere in this thread but as in the previous examples it is not true. Citing something that is untrue does not make it true.

You are correct. Nothing has been changed yet. It was suggested as a possible change. Scary!

No it was not.

Changes are not "suggested."

The Comp Plan is a formal legislative proposal before the DC Council.

The proposal that is before the DC Council does not include any changes to the set back requirements. Or lot occupancy requirements. Or side yard requirements. It simply is not in there.

That someone suggested it elsewhere in this thread does not make it true.

The only scary thing is the stupid people who believe some of the nonsense one person keeps repeating on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

This thread is waaaaayyy too long for that. Can’t believe it’s still going.

That's because you would like the least amount of attention possible called to the Mayor's density moves.

You are responding to someone else but I support increasing density in DC and am glad to discuss it.

But it is BS that the setback requirements are being changed - the accusation has been leveled elsewhere in this thread but as in the previous examples it is not true. Citing something that is untrue does not make it true.

You are correct. Nothing has been changed yet. It was suggested as a possible change. Scary!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

This thread is waaaaayyy too long for that. Can’t believe it’s still going.

That's because you would like the least amount of attention possible called to the Mayor's density moves.

You are responding to someone else but I support increasing density in DC and am glad to discuss it.

But it is BS that the setback requirements are being changed - the accusation has been leveled elsewhere in this thread but as in the previous examples it is not true. Citing something that is untrue does not make it true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

This thread is waaaaayyy too long for that. Can’t believe it’s still going.

That's because you would like the least amount of attention possible called to the Mayor's density moves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

This thread is waaaaayyy too long for that. Can’t believe it’s still going.

And try not insulting people who simply disagree with you. You might find it refreshing to be the better person you are capable of being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

It's been shared many times in this thread. Read back through.

Anonymous wrote:They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.

Nope they did not - I've read the Comp Plan (well much of it at least) and that was not in there.

It also was not in the report about possibly changing single family zoning that someone (presumably you) keeps conflating with the proposed Comp Plan changes.

Please provide a citation - until you do your post in fact was moronic and untrue.

They suggested changing the set backs in the Mayor's Comp plan. Do you feel better about yourself using phrases like 'moronic'? I hope it gave you the boost you were looking for today.