Anonymous wrote:The opponents of GDS's new campus are like the woman on Capitol Hill who spends 20 hours a week harassing her neighbor because their tree house extends 20 inches into the public airspace above the alley. They simply won't go away. Some are normally very nice people, some are NIMBYs, some are anti-private schools, some are just batty. They clearly have nothing better to do and feel especially motivated to bash away at GDS. Luckily, public officials are used to the very small number of folks who find meaning in their lives through extreme arguments against private development and how other people use their own money and property. If they ever amounted to more than a handful, we'd have had a Trotsky-ite paradise long ago. So let them rant...Don't engage them any more...let this thread die.

I feel badly for the GDS public outreach person or people. Instead of promoting the great things happening at the school, which presumably is what they signed up for, they find themselves babysitting blogs. In particular, they are in the unenviable position of having to flack for GDS' big development partners, ready with a rapid response to bash any community members with the temerity to suggest that commercial development in the community should actually comply with DC zoning.

The opponents of GDS's new campus are like the woman on Capitol Hill who spends 20 hours a week harassing her neighbor because their tree house extends 20 inches into the public airspace above the alley. They simply won't go away. Some are normally very nice people, some are NIMBYs, some are anti-private schools, some are just batty. They clearly have nothing better to do and feel especially motivated to bash away at GDS. Luckily, public officials are used to the very small number of folks who find meaning in their lives through extreme arguments against private development and how other people use their own money and property. If they ever amounted to more than a handful, we'd have had a Trotsky-ite paradise long ago. So let them rant...Don't engage them any more...let this thread die.

Anonymous wrote:I get that this is what you do when you don't have land. What I don't understand is why, when the school does have land, it hands it over to a developer rather than uses it for educational facilities.

I could understand a self-protective land-banking strategy with temporary commercial uses. (e.g. School wants control over adjacent properties for long-term use, and this is the window of opportunity for land acquisition but school can't currently afford or doesn't currently need the space, so it builds something that it owns/controls/has the right to remove but that yields revenue in the meanwhile).

But doing what GDS is proposing suggests screwed-up priorities and/or a toxic mix of conflicts-of-interest and naïveté.

Because this was a real estate deal cooked up by developer-insiders on GDS' board. They are using the legal vehicle of school ownership of both parcels to "borrow" density from the campus/Safeway site to develop the Volvo site higher and denser than what zoning allows. They justify busting zoning restrictions and even taking public space by claiming that such a large project is required to fund more financial aid. But their claim that GDS intends to do good masks their private plans to do well.

Anonymous wrote:It may not be optimal, but elite schools in New York have had this condition for 70+ years and it hasn't undermined their school experiences. It is a strawman argument.

It is an urban school. If you want Landon, go to Landon. They have lots of open space and fields.

But AU Park and Tenleytown are not exactly urban neighborhoods (their quasi-suburban character is part of what residents value ), although GDS' commercial plans seem bent on transforming the area into one.

Anonymous wrote:And it's a not a "so go to Landon" scenario. Sidwell and Maret have values and educational philosophies similar to GDS's and are located in the same part of DC and can offer a co-ed K-12 program on a single campus without resorting to athletic facilities or playgrounds on the roof.

So choose one of those schools. GDS doesn't have a football team, hasn't as long as I've been alive. This does say something about the school's priorities (and means they don't need a football field)!

Anonymous wrote:I get that this is what you do when you don't have land. What I don't understand is why, when the school does have land, it hands it over to a developer rather than uses it for educational facilities.

I could understand a self-protective land-banking strategy with temporary commercial uses. (e.g. School wants control over adjacent properties for long-term use, and this is the window of opportunity for land acquisition but school can't currently afford or doesn't currently need the space, so it builds something that it owns/controls/has the right to remove but that yields revenue in the meanwhile).

But doing what GDS is proposing suggests screwed-up priorities and/or a toxic mix of conflicts-of-interest and naïveté.

Or a school that recognizes that 6% tuition increases each year is not ideal to keep a mix of low, moderate, and high income families and is trying to work creatively to come up with a sustainable solution. You know what my priorities are in educating my kids: 1) a safe learning environment where they are happy; 2) top notch teachers and a strong curriculum; and 3) an environment that breeds tolerance and will empower my kid to do something to make the world a better place. You know what my priorities aren't: great athletics. As long as my kids get an opportunity to run around and play outside, I could care less whether there is an Olympic sized swimming pool, multiple fields, and country club style facilities. This is probably why I chose a school like GDS. If your priorities are different, you should feel free to choose another school - there are many options in DC with these types of facilities.

And it's a not a "so go to Landon" scenario. Sidwell and Maret have values and educational philosophies similar to GDS's and are located in the same part of DC and can offer a co-ed K-12 program on a single campus without resorting to athletic facilities or playgrounds on the roof.

I get that this is what you do when you don't have land. What I don't understand is why, when the school does have land, it hands it over to a developer rather than uses it for educational facilities.

I could understand a self-protective land-banking strategy with temporary commercial uses. (e.g. School wants control over adjacent properties for long-term use, and this is the window of opportunity for land acquisition but school can't currently afford or doesn't currently need the space, so it builds something that it owns/controls/has the right to remove but that yields revenue in the meanwhile).

But doing what GDS is proposing suggests screwed-up priorities and/or a toxic mix of conflicts-of-interest and naïveté.

It may not be optimal, but elite schools in New York have had this condition for 70+ years and it hasn't undermined their school experiences. It is a strawman argument.

It is an urban school. If you want Landon, go to Landon. They have lots of open space and fields.

River School (on MacArthur) has a rooftop playground -- not sure it's a selling point. Yeah, it's better than no playground at all. But it's not optimal. The whole "It'll be like Paris" (or Rome -- "the Spanish Steps") or NYC thing is just laughable.

There are fields and courts on schools roofs in Paris, Boston and New York, among others. It is hard to fathom why such would be an issue here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it'd be great if the school's expansion encompassed the Volvo site. But that's not what's being proposed. The school expansion will be limited to the Safeway land (increasing GDS's population at the Tenley campus by over 800 people) AND the school is asking that a developer of their choice be authorized to build a residential-retail building on the Volvo site (and some public land) that is over twice the size allowed by the existing zoning. The combination of the two projects will overwhelm that block and the second/commercial project is all about greed - not about progressive education. It's kind of disgusting to watch a school founded on such laudable principles morph into a really shameless propagandist for a GDS-affiliated developer.

Don't forget that the only place where they can locate a sports field for little kids is on the roof, 3 stories up. With the topography of Tenleytown, that's going to be a wind tunnel. It's a shame that GDS needs to cram every aspect of their school programmatic needs on the Safeway site so that they can monetize the Volvo site to the hilt.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. All this money, all this work, all this risk, and I don't think the school will have good space when/if it all gets done. The plan was flawed from the start. I don't live in the neighborhood, so I can be objective.

You can be objective sure, and you can be wrong as well. I loved the idea of having the field on the rooftop. Let see how it all ends up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it'd be great if the school's expansion encompassed the Volvo site. But that's not what's being proposed. The school expansion will be limited to the Safeway land (increasing GDS's population at the Tenley campus by over 800 people) AND the school is asking that a developer of their choice be authorized to build a residential-retail building on the Volvo site (and some public land) that is over twice the size allowed by the existing zoning. The combination of the two projects will overwhelm that block and the second/commercial project is all about greed - not about progressive education. It's kind of disgusting to watch a school founded on such laudable principles morph into a really shameless propagandist for a GDS-affiliated developer.

Don't forget that the only place where they can locate a sports field for little kids is on the roof, 3 stories up. With the topography of Tenleytown, that's going to be a wind tunnel. It's a shame that GDS needs to cram every aspect of their school programmatic needs on the Safeway site so that they can monetize the Volvo site to the hilt.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. All this money, all this work, all this risk, and I don't think the school will have good space when/if it all gets done. The plan was flawed from the start. I don't live in the neighborhood, so I can be objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you all want more affordable housing, then demand that another floor or two be added to pay for it. You can only squeeze the balloon so much.

Yet, for all of the people bitching about the social justice, or lack there of, let's see if you embrace a homeless shelter or treatment clinic in the neighborhood.

The so-called progressive liberals in upper NW are all fine and mighty except when it comes to their neighborhood. Practice what you preach or shut the fuck up.

One hopes that this is not what is taught in GDS English classes. If this is the best writing that you can do, I'm afraid that Harvard's going to be a stretch.

Oh!!!! How poignant! Jur, jur... Puaj... Superficial. This is probably not a student. You say and act worst than that. For sure. Ooohhhh..... all smiles and then ... clack! Knife on the back. No wit, no brilliance, pure mediocrity... You probably didn't go to Harvard either but you know what, many jerks did. Like GW Bush....

Anonymous wrote:If you all want more affordable housing, then demand that another floor or two be added to pay for it. You can only squeeze the balloon so much.

Yet, for all of the people bitching about the social justice, or lack there of, let's see if you embrace a homeless shelter or treatment clinic in the neighborhood.

The so-called progressive liberals in upper NW are all fine and mighty except when it comes to their neighborhood. Practice what you preach or shut the fuck up.

One hopes that this is not what is taught in GDS English classes. If this is the best writing that you can do, I'm afraid that Harvard's going to be a stretch.