Anonymous wrote:I don't get why GDS thinks that adding more retail space will increase demand. I hope they don't teach economics at that school.

No, the argument is more like you need more retail to attract people to live there. But then you need a lot more density to provide customers to attract the retail, and so on....
Brilliant, which must be why it's called "smart growth." You can diagram it on with the "Laugh-er Curve."

Anonymous wrote:They need the retail so their students will have a place to eat.

Great. More fast food, even if it's yup-scaled as "fast casual."

What year does this get approved? My bet is that has at least five more years of vetting.

They need the retail so their students will have a place to eat.

I don't get why GDS thinks that adding more retail space will increase demand. I hope they don't teach economics at that school.

Anonymous wrote:There has yet to be a matter of right proposal for either parcel. The Safeway plans were subject to more density and the earlier Martens proposals were subject to more density. But we can keep waiting for the mythical Matter of right proposal while the vacant property adds blight.

Many developers may ask for a PUD (and Safeway was running into issues with its proposal). But the reason that developers are hiding behind GDS' skirt on this transaction is because they can only make this density transfer argument if there is a common owner and development proposal.

If the market believes it can manipulate the regulatory regime, it will try to do so. If the market can't, it will adjust and build accordingly. I don't want to see vacant lots, but the neighborhood wants to get this right. Otherwise, it will get a big, mediocre, overbuilt project like Cathedral Commons which can't even lease all of its space. And that's not a surprise, because the Wisconsin corridor already is overbuilt for retail.

There has yet to be a matter of right proposal for either parcel. The Safeway plans were subject to more density and the earlier Martens proposals were subject to more density. But we can keep waiting for the mythical Matter of right proposal while the vacant property adds blight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Financing it is not my problem. I was born and raised in DC including a childhood in Tenleytown. gds needs to rethink what it's doing. It's reputation as a progressive school is getting trashed. It's weird obsession on this board with Harvard and how it compares to other schools and their celebrity students makes it seem like a wannabe school that is turning its back on its history. I want Tenleytown to evolve, but I don't trust the smart growth crowd anymore. What I thought was an interesting approach to urban planning now seems like a front group for rich private school families and developers.

Wishful thinking is great. I would love unicorns that fart rainbows too, but that won't address the empty spaces and blight in the neighborhood. You say you want organic growth, whatever the hell that is, but don't offer solutions to how to fill the vacant spaces such as the former car dealership. Yes, financing isn't your problem, because you don't own the land and are playing armchair property owner. If you have a real solution, put the money together and develop the property as you wish. In the mean time, the rest of us in the neighborhood want to add the retail and affordable housing that this project should provide. It is better than tumbleweeds.


(and I agree with the ANC that there should be more affordable housing than the less than minimal amount GDS is proposing).

"Blight in the neighborhood"? Please. Perhaps Greedy Developer $chool and its developer partners are not willing or able to live within the zoning regs and the comprehensive plan, insisting instead on a PUD that busts both and is based on some hypothetical transfer of density from its campus parcel, which they never plan to use for anything other than a school. (This hypothetical density transfer is the key that explains why the Team of Aces and developer partners in the shadows are using the school as the front purchaser for the Wisconsin property. Once all zoning approvals are obtained, the school is free to sell out to them because the necessity of having a single property owner with a unified development scheme goes away.)

If the GD$ front group can't develop them under current zoning and the comprehensive plan, they should sell the Wisconsin Ave parcels. Some other developer will be perfectly happy to build as a matter of right under existing zoning. GD$ is trying to stuff a two-fer down the neighborhood's throat: a school that is more than 100% bigger AND a development that violates existing zoning in multiple ways. And don't forget that if GD$ gets the PUD it wants, then that will become the base line and precedent for other projects to demand PUDs and special exceptions and soon zoning and the comprehensive plan are history in Tenleytown.

Sorry. Cityline at Tenley.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know numbers, but some families do live at City Center -- which has the same housing mix. And Janney is so tight that it will not take many to put it over.

City Center as in downtown? Some of those are huge, multi-million units. How do you figure the studios and 1BR at this development are the same mix? The ANC is pushing for more 2 and 3 BR units. That would seem to undercut your theory and concern.

They already said they want more DC and "walking" kids in the school.

Before GDS reaps some public benefits on its real estate speculation, it should open up on the ownership and economic beneficiaries of the development. How much goes to GDS, how much to developers? How much is GDS committing to scholarship? Is it going to make a commitment to bring kids in from the neighborhood? If GDS agrees to give priority to neighborhood kids, you might see a shift in tone.

I don't know numbers, but some families do live at City Center -- which has the same housing mix. And Janney is so tight that it will not take many to put it over.

How many families do you expect to live in studio and 1 BR units?

I suspect that the open space is a result of the prices/rents demanded by property owners. Lower the prices and businesses will come. In other words, let the market determine the outcome rather than throwing out the zoning rules.

As for changing demand for retail by adding a few hundred apartment units, that won't happen -- just do the math. But it those units could very well push Janney over the edge.