Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Again, I just don't care. No pretending needed.

And there you have it, a supporter of development who doesn't care about its impact. How unique.

Yeah...that's 99% of the population. Sorry to burst your bubble. I mean, at this point Mazza has been torn down and the new building is going up...is there any reason to even talk about the former Mazza?

Accountability for promises made and promises broken by developers. This should be tracked forwhen the next project is proposed, obviously.

Unless I am missing something, isn't the redeveloped Mazza all private $$$s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Repurposing older buildngs, especially Class C office is insanely expensive. A lot of the buildings in FH are 40 plus years old. You basically have to gut it down to the studs and rebuild. Honestly, in many ways it is easier to tear down and start over with materials and design that meet todays sustainability standards and what the markets wants. There is a reason conversions of office downtown are so challenging. Why do people who know nothing about real estate or construction act like they own these properties and they know how to make them profitable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Again, I just don't care. No pretending needed.

And there you have it, a supporter of development who doesn't care about its impact. How unique.

Yeah...that's 99% of the population. Sorry to burst your bubble. I mean, at this point Mazza has been torn down and the new building is going up...is there any reason to even talk about the former Mazza?

Accountability for promises made and promises broken by developers. This should be tracked forwhen the next project is proposed, obviously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Again, I just don't care. No pretending needed.

And there you have it, a supporter of development who doesn't care about its impact. How unique.

Yeah...that's 99% of the population. Sorry to burst your bubble. I mean, at this point Mazza has been torn down and the new building is going up...is there any reason to even talk about the former Mazza?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Again, I just don't care. No pretending needed.

And there you have it, a supporter of development who doesn't care about its impact. How unique.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

"luxury condo" means "new condo", that's all

That Woodies was great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Again, I just don't care. No pretending needed.

As you say, it's capitalism and throw in some cronyism too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

A lot of this new development has a huge carbon footprint when they tear down and start over, rather than conserve and repurpose. This is about quick $ for developers and whatever the long term impact of their tiny luxury condos, who cares. Not thoughtful mixed use urban planning. But feel free to pretend otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The area was hopping around 2007. Barneys was there, Bloomingdales was brand new. Lots of shopping options in the pavillion. I loved seeing movies at Mazza. (Ward 3 needs more cinemas, but that's another post.)

I think online shopping and covid were the causes. But I'm not sure the new options are going to be much better from a retail perspective. DC used to be the place to go to shop, not people in DC have to go to the burbs to shop.

FH never had much residential. I can only hope that all the new development at Mazza, the old Fox 5 and the DSW building which all include a major residential element will allow the new retail to succeed.

It feels like there is a lot of residential stuff when you go West of Wisconsin over the MD border, but that residential trends elderly and it is surprising how far of a walk it actually is when you map those buildings to the intersection of Western and Military.

WTH are you talking about? The Maryland portion of FH is literally the densest CDP in the country. Maybe the residential stopped at the DC line, but there are huge apartment buildings just steps over the border. And in five years, the DC portion will be hugely built up with residential.

Yeah, I mean I pointed that out. That said, do we know the demographics of the CC MD housing? Other than the apartment building directly next to the Whole Foods, the rest of that residential seems to skew elderly.

It is just odd to have such little in the way of retail and other services with all those buildings right there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

This is the problem with historic designation and the like. It’s really just personal taste. What you say is striking I guarantee didn’t resonate with 99% of the population.

It looked like a hulking enclosed mall…nothing more. I don’t care they tore it down, nor would I care if someone thought repurposing the existing structure was a better use. That’s capitalism and I wish the new owner/developer with success as this will be the anchor for new development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The area was hopping around 2007. Barneys was there, Bloomingdales was brand new. Lots of shopping options in the pavillion. I loved seeing movies at Mazza. (Ward 3 needs more cinemas, but that's another post.)

I think online shopping and covid were the causes. But I'm not sure the new options are going to be much better from a retail perspective. DC used to be the place to go to shop, not people in DC have to go to the burbs to shop.

FH never had much residential. I can only hope that all the new development at Mazza, the old Fox 5 and the DSW building which all include a major residential element will allow the new retail to succeed.

It feels like there is a lot of residential stuff when you go West of Wisconsin over the MD border, but that residential trends elderly and it is surprising how far of a walk it actually is when you map those buildings to the intersection of Western and Military.

WTH are you talking about? The Maryland portion of FH is literally the densest CDP in the country. Maybe the residential stopped at the DC line, but there are huge apartment buildings just steps over the border. And in five years, the DC portion will be hugely built up with residential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.

Chacune à son goût.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article a few years back that city centre dc sucked all the luxury life from FH--a lot of the stores moved. Honestly, with city centre even more plagued by crime, perhaps they'll all come back. I am devastated that they didn't maintain the Mazza facade--it was weird but interesting--they could have blown out the back with something glass, airy and outward looking. Whatever, I'm sure they'll replace it with something horrendously nonedescript with some luxury condos tacked on. Not sure that will be a big win.

…and yet in 50 years there will be a group of people trying to get historic designation for the “horrendously nondescript” building going up as we speak.

Mazza was just as nondescript as any other modern building…and many buildings constructed 50 or 70 or 100 years ago.

it just wasn't. It had a striking architecture. You might not have liked it, but it was bold.