So with all the development underway, planned and advocated for, we’ll get higher assessments, more traffic, even more overcrowded schools and the loss of cherished locally-owned businesses. What’s not to like about more and more dense, vibrant mixed-use “Smart” Growth?!

Anonymous wrote:All these YIMBY folks don’t own a backyard or anything.

There are a ton of apartments being built as has been noted. All these folks insistent on more more building can’t afford the condos soon to be for rent.

Small retail - like Sullivan’s - is over. Such stores can’t swing the rent for the space in one of these new overbuilds:

This. No one will be able to afford the condos. It you are going to pay that money, then you'll spend it on a 4 up/4 down center stair colonial which around here are starting at $1.2M. They you at last get a back yard....

I'd love to see the study. GGW must have it somewhere. What are the numbers, and types of IZ, affordable housing built at Navy Yard as compared to other unit types and numbers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

One is an obscure theory taught in grad school seminars to Comparative Lit MA students.

The other is an organization that has a history of unethical conduct.

Both of these things are the same.

Critical race theory is mostly taught in law schools, but sure.

You are commenting to someone who has a JD and you can rest assured that don't know what you are talking about.

It's not taught IN most law schools, but it started as a specific subset of legal academia. It's not literary criticism or postmodernism, though it has also influenced disciplines like sociology and philosophy. Neither of which are comp lit.

I am quite familiar with the origin and actually read Derek Bell's book as an undergrad. It's usually taught as part of a critical theory curriculum which accompanies coursework in American Studies and English Lit. Critical theory is commonly used as a construct for analysis of literature, which frequently gets mocked outside of the academy. A common course one would find would be something like "Critical and Comparative Theory", which would provide a general survey of the subject and with enrollment from Comparative Lit, American Studies and other related MA students. There is not a lot of application of Critical Race Theory to the current contemporary study of law or lawyering, which is why it is not taught in law school. This concluded your lesson. Thanks for listening and please complete your course evaluations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

One is an obscure theory taught in grad school seminars to Comparative Lit MA students.

The other is an organization that has a history of unethical conduct.

Both of these things are the same.

Critical race theory is mostly taught in law schools, but sure.

You are commenting to someone who has a JD and you can rest assured that don't know what you are talking about.

It's not taught IN most law schools, but it started as a specific subset of legal academia. It's not literary criticism or postmodernism, though it has also influenced disciplines like sociology and philosophy. Neither of which are comp lit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

No, it's not.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

How about pegging IZ at a much lower level than 80% AMI and requiring a serious percentage of IZ, at least 35%=40%, in exchange for a map amendment or higher density?

Well, that is if they want to go through a PUD. Look at the last 15 PUD's in Ward 3 - how long did they take? how much in legal expenses did the developers borne? How many of them were actually built?

Ah, the poor developers who have to spend money on zoning lawyers. (They also spend plenty of money on fixers that know how to express their clients’, uh, generous appreciation of DC’s esteemed public servants.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

One is an obscure theory taught in grad school seminars to Comparative Lit MA students.

The other is an organization that has a history of unethical conduct.

Both of these things are the same.

Critical race theory is mostly taught in law schools, but sure.

You are commenting to someone who has a JD and you can rest assured that don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

One is an obscure theory taught in grad school seminars to Comparative Lit MA students.

The other is an organization that has a history of unethical conduct.

Both of these things are the same.

Critical race theory is mostly taught in law schools, but sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

One is an obscure theory taught in grad school seminars to Comparative Lit MA students.

The other is an organization that has a history of unethical conduct.

Both of these things are the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not enough kids in upper NW DC to support a toy store. They can't even fill their schools there. That's why they need to have such a high number of out of bounds students at Wilson and Deal and Janney etc.

There are plenty of kids to fill Janney, Deal, and Wilson, it's just that many if not most of them are going to private schools instead.

Lack of kids isn't what closed Sullivan's, people are just getting their toys elsewhere, like online where it's cheaper and arrives at your door in hours. It's tough to compete against that kind of convenience.

I agree that people got lazy, but an effort could be made to save Sullivan's. People make a pointed effort to shop at Politics and Prose, because they don't want to wake up and see a void there. We need to save Sullivan's. And it doesn't sound like AU tapped into that, or they could totally have delegated some students to make a student project around saving Sullivan's. Zero imagination.

This is not how capitalism works. The "Amazon effect" is pretty likely the main reason for a place like Sullivan's go out of business. Politics and Prose is a very different business model than a toy store.

It's a book store! The MOST vulnerable to "the Amazon effect"..if the hood could save P and P, we could easily "save" Sullivan's.

But P&P's business model has changed substantially -- they don't just sell books, they also do a ton of events and have a full restaurant in the basement. THAT sort of thing is Amazon-proof, because you can't go see a book talk and then get a cup of coffee or a glass of wine afterwards without actually going to the store. Sullivan's, as much as my kids and I love it, really is just a place to browse and buy stuff -- which you can do online, even if it's a less satisfying version of the experience.

I'd also heard from Sullivan's that they had an additional problem recently, which is that wholesalers and manufacturers were making it harder for them to get specific products -- they only wanted to sell them at bigger scale to larger stores or chains. Which, on top of the rent, the pandemic, and the competition from the web, is yet another factor that probably did them in.

A PP here, and yes, they told me this too, when I asked a few weeks ago about the obvious shortage of merchandise. So, this tells you something else about the demise of the family business - the manufacturing/ wholesaling/ production/ retailing is all becoming one huge conglomerate based out of, guess where, China.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

No, it's not.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

How about pegging IZ at a much lower level than 80% AMI and requiring a serious percentage of IZ, at least 35%=40%, in exchange for a map amendment or higher density?

Well, that is if they want to go through a PUD. Look at the last 15 PUD's in Ward 3 - how long did they take? how much in legal expenses did the developers borne? How many of them were actually built?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

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

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

GGW functions on this message board in the same way as "critical race theory" does on Fox News: as an all-purpose enemy to which many, many evils can be attributed.

D.C.'s densest neighborhood is exactly the right place for mixed-use zoning, i.e., shopping in the middle of housing. I don't think you'd see any objection from "that crowd" to a proposal to tear down DCUSA and replace it with better, or more, commercial use, or even with housing on top of it. But if you think intellectual consistency on their part requires them to want exactly the same thing in every part of the city, you don't understand the issues they're discussing, even if you disagree with them about them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

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.

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.”

In what way is it density? Compared to what? A surface parking lot?

It's much denser than what was there before, which was basically empty lots and burned-out buildings that had never really been restored after the riots in 1968. But not denser than what was there before then: http://www.streetsofwashington.com/2014/04/the-arcade-in-columbia-heights.html

At the time that project was set in motion, it may have been the only available option for economic development of a site that was way less desirable for business than it became not long after the building opened. I never particularly liked it, but the context in which it was developed is worth keeping in mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not enough kids in upper NW DC to support a toy store. They can't even fill their schools there. That's why they need to have such a high number of out of bounds students at Wilson and Deal and Janney etc.

There are plenty of kids to fill Janney, Deal, and Wilson, it's just that many if not most of them are going to private schools instead.

Lack of kids isn't what closed Sullivan's, people are just getting their toys elsewhere, like online where it's cheaper and arrives at your door in hours. It's tough to compete against that kind of convenience.

I agree that people got lazy, but an effort could be made to save Sullivan's. People make a pointed effort to shop at Politics and Prose, because they don't want to wake up and see a void there. We need to save Sullivan's. And it doesn't sound like AU tapped into that, or they could totally have delegated some students to make a student project around saving Sullivan's. Zero imagination.

This is not how capitalism works. The "Amazon effect" is pretty likely the main reason for a place like Sullivan's go out of business. Politics and Prose is a very different business model than a toy store.

It's a book store! The MOST vulnerable to "the Amazon effect"..if the hood could save P and P, we could easily "save" Sullivan's.

But P&P's business model has changed substantially -- they don't just sell books, they also do a ton of events and have a full restaurant in the basement. THAT sort of thing is Amazon-proof, because you can't go see a book talk and then get a cup of coffee or a glass of wine afterwards without actually going to the store. Sullivan's, as much as my kids and I love it, really is just a place to browse and buy stuff -- which you can do online, even if it's a less satisfying version of the experience.

I'd also heard from Sullivan's that they had an additional problem recently, which is that wholesalers and manufacturers were making it harder for them to get specific products -- they only wanted to sell them at bigger scale to larger stores or chains. Which, on top of the rent, the pandemic, and the competition from the web, is yet another factor that probably did them in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are over 1500 housing units under construction right now 1 to 2 blocks south of that site. Yet you say that Tenleytown needs more, more, more.

By the way, how many of the units at City Ridge and at 4000 Wisconsin will be truly affordable? Yeah. But that is the Smart Growth pretext for allowing laissez faire development in DC.

No, it's not.

So, what percentage of the new units will be "inclusive zoning"? And how many of those IZ units will actually be somewhat affordable, or are they simply set at 80% AMI?

IZ lets a select few lucky duckies and insiders that can navigate city bureaucracy and win a lottery have their rent subsidized by everyone else in their building that pays more, even if those other people in the building make less income.

Well, isn't that better than no IZ and thus no affordable housing units at all?

What do you suggest that uses private dollars as an alternative?

How about pegging IZ at a much lower level than 80% AMI and requiring a serious percentage of IZ, at least 35%=40%, in exchange for a map amendment or higher density?

Any rental subsidy should come directly from the government. It should not be an obligation of other tenants to directly subsidize other tenants driving up housing costs for everyone else in the process.

OK, then let's not sell laissez faire market rate housing development as providing affordable housing.