Anonymous wrote:Maybe if the neighbors hadn't fought the Cathedral Commons PUD for 15 years, the developer would have had money for nicer materials, or to put it better, rather than fight a development in a losing cause, demand better design and materials.

You don’t know what the f you’re talking about. The neighbors and Mayor Williams got Giant to agree to build a new store in 2002. Then Giant’s parent, reeling from securities fraud charges, breached the agreement and walked away. Had Giant had corporate integrity, the neighborhood would have had a new store 15 years ago.

That said, the Giant that eventually got built turned out to be nothing special. Even Safeway leaves them in the dust.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if the neighbors hadn't fought the Cathedral Commons PUD for 15 years, the developer would have had money for nicer materials, or to put it better, rather than fight a development in a losing cause, demand better design and materials.

I enjoy CC. I have zero issue with it. Wish that Oyster place hadnt closed - but it also didnt have that amazing of food. Beyond that, what's the issue? Ots human sized, nice restaurants, wide sidewalks, and occasionally hosts events.

Maybe if the neighbors hadn't fought the Cathedral Commons PUD for 15 years, the developer would have had money for nicer materials, or to put it better, rather than fight a development in a losing cause, demand better design and materials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parcel behind Fannie mae is going to be dense, even with height restrictions. They will cover every parcel they can eventually. At least we can still see the sky. And at least they put in underground parking there. Thinking smart, for once.

And yet, it could have been more if the developer had been willing to go through the PUD process.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ha! The Fannie site developer is building a far better designed, better landscaped project with higher quality materials than a PUD just three blocks south, Cathedral Commons. Cathedral Commons was built with cheap materials, in part has the architecture of a budget-bracket airport hotel, and is not aging well (love those aluminum faux balconies). Although not required to provide a community amenity package, the Fannie project preserves and enlivens the entire front lawn as a park along Wisconsin. As a PUD, Cathedral Commons was required to provide amenity space, in order to get more height and density than the property's zoning permitted. The sole community "amenity" is a tiny wall fountain next to what used to be Grilled Oyster. You have to search hard for it.

Anonymous wrote:The parcel behind Fannie mae is going to be dense, even with height restrictions. They will cover every parcel they can eventually. At least we can still see the sky. And at least they put in underground parking there. Thinking smart, for once.

And yet, it could have been more if the developer had been willing to go through the PUD process.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of undeveloped parcels along Rhode Island Avenue...There's plenty more density to be added without increasing the height limit.

One of the pressures to increase development in less developed areas of the city is the height limit. There's lots more growth to be added without turning into Rockville or Arlington.

Now, that said, I'm not actually against raising the height limit. But to say there's no more space left is to pretend that NW is the only sector of the city.

This is idiocy.
You’re claiming that parcels on Rhode Island Avenue are as valuable as parcels in DuPont circle??!!?


The whole point of building up is to increase density in DESIRABLE locations.

Sure, like in downtown and Upper NW. No thanks, Bowser. You've done enough corrupt favors for your crony developer "friends."

How do we say no thanks? Has the tide turned, or are she and the council still ramming through projects and variances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of undeveloped parcels along Rhode Island Avenue...There's plenty more density to be added without increasing the height limit.

One of the pressures to increase development in less developed areas of the city is the height limit. There's lots more growth to be added without turning into Rockville or Arlington.

Now, that said, I'm not actually against raising the height limit. But to say there's no more space left is to pretend that NW is the only sector of the city.

This is idiocy.
You’re claiming that parcels on Rhode Island Avenue are as valuable as parcels in DuPont circle??!!?


The whole point of building up is to increase density in DESIRABLE locations.

Sure, like in downtown and Upper NW. No thanks, Bowser. You've done enough corrupt favors for your crony developer "friends."

The parcel behind Fannie mae is going to be dense, even with height restrictions. They will cover every parcel they can eventually. At least we can still see the sky. And at least they put in underground parking there. Thinking smart, for once.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of undeveloped parcels along Rhode Island Avenue...There's plenty more density to be added without increasing the height limit.

One of the pressures to increase development in less developed areas of the city is the height limit. There's lots more growth to be added without turning into Rockville or Arlington.

Now, that said, I'm not actually against raising the height limit. But to say there's no more space left is to pretend that NW is the only sector of the city.

This is idiocy.
You’re claiming that parcels on Rhode Island Avenue are as valuable as parcels in DuPont circle??!!?


The whole point of building up is to increase density in DESIRABLE locations.