Plenty of neighbors are getting massaged by GDS. Makes you want to trust them with your kids, right?

Where the hell am I going to get 7 year old issues of a trade rag?

How did you get them?

Or at least a massage parlor. that would be nice.

Anonymous wrote:It was also supported by local residents. That is why it is called a NIMBY War. Just like GDS, just like Tenley View, just like Cathedral Commons.

Some people want lively streetscapes and walkable amenities. Other people would rather have, what a 1953 Giant, a used car lot and some empty store fronts.

That doesn't make a pro-change neighborhood group a mouthpiece for developers.

Cathedral Commons is sooo lively. Can't wait for the nail salon to open. Maybe we'll get a fourth bank, too.

It was also supported by local residents. That is why it is called a NIMBY War. Just like GDS, just like Tenley View, just like Cathedral Commons.

Some people want lively streetscapes and walkable amenities. Other people would rather have, what a 1953 Giant, a used car lot and some empty store fronts.

That doesn't make a pro-change neighborhood group a mouthpiece for developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ward 3 Vision and Greater Greater Washington are basically mouthpieces for big development interests.

I assume we'll get the proof of this .

You might want to check the July/August 2008 edition of Building in Maryland and Washington, DC, a publication of The Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association (available on-line). That issue includes a profile of the Smart Growth Alliance, and according to the M-NCBIA, the Smart Growth Alliance was founded by a partner of Holland & Knight (one of the major land use law practices in DC). The Holland & Knight partner was made the first director. According to the article, they partnered with groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth (Ward 3 Vision’s partner) to advance the main purpose of the organization: to secure approvals for projects that had substantial increases in density and faced neighborhood opposition. One of their first projects was to set up an awards program, which could be used by the developers in zoning hearings. The only objective criteria for the award was that the project was somewhere near transit, had a substantial increase in density and faced credible opposition. The groups like Coalition for Smarter Growth were frequently tapped to testify at the zoning hearing that the project won a Smart Growth Alliance award.

In addition, the book NIMBY Wars, a book of case studies published by a consulting firm, includes a description of how the consulting strategist used the local “smart growth” group, Ward 3 Vision, to attempt to demonstrate support for a project which they recognized was opposed by local residents.

Do you have ruby slippers to go with the tin-foil hat?

I was looking for some sleepy-time reading material. Any suggestions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ward 3 Vision and Greater Greater Washington are basically mouthpieces for big development interests.

I assume we'll get the proof of this along with the title to the architect guy's Hamptons lair and Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

Read their clips.

Anonymous wrote:
Ward 3 Vision and Greater Greater Washington are basically mouthpieces for big development interests.

I assume we'll get the proof of this along with the title to the architect guy's Hamptons lair and Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, and that's why I think architects and planners shouldn't be allowed to weigh in on development proposals unless they have a direct negative impact on their homes.

There's necessarily a conflict of interest there - they want more business and are eager to let loose their ivory tower "SmartGrowth" mantras to make skyscrapers like this one look good.

Just because it's not paid doesn't mean it's ethical.

I think that folks can weigh in as they wish. At the same time, people can also weigh their possible affiliations and motivations. Ward 3 Vision and Greater Greater Washington are basically mouthpieces for big development interests. Even if architects are not directly involved in the project, they may be preening and sucking up in the hope of attracting friendly developer business in the future.

Exactly, and that's why I think architects and planners shouldn't be allowed to weigh in on development proposals unless they have a direct negative impact on their homes.

There's necessarily a conflict of interest there - they want more business and are eager to let loose their ivory tower "SmartGrowth" mantras to make skyscrapers like this one look good.

Just because it's not paid doesn't mean it's ethical.

Esocoff's move to Gensler came months after the fawning article was written. And people suck up in all sorts of situations where the odds of it doing them any good are minimal. Lots of wannabes seem drawn to this project.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

It's my understanding that it takes several years to get a license, through an apprenticeship program.

I doubt he'd get work from this job anyway. Didn't you see the Esocoff merged with another firm? He's retiring.