Anonymous wrote:I’m a local neighbor living about three blocks away off Connecticut.

I wish instead of trying to take Rosemary’s Streetery down, we would instead find other ways to add more streeteries from the other neighboring businesses. Other parts of the city with more congested streets have successfully done this, including the 9th Street corridor, 18th street corridor, 14th street corridor, and M street in Georgetown. You will be surprised how adaptable cars, people, and neighborhoods are to the structures, even when the road is a major throughfare. The Streetery actually slows down traffic, creates more of a walkable neighborhood, and deepens the bond of the local community.

I do think Rosemary’s could benefit from a bit of a cosmetic facelift on its streetery, just as a preference. Some of these Streetery restaurants have done really amazing things with the structures- like Le Diplomat on 14th Street or Unconventional Diner on 9th. But let’s imagine a commercial corridor, that’s walkable, creates a strong sense of community and is visually beautiful. The streeteries in other parts of the city have whole corridors of outside dining that have helped their businesses thrive, even post pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a local neighbor living about three blocks away off Connecticut.

I wish instead of trying to take Rosemary’s Streetery down, we would instead find other ways to add more streeteries from the other neighboring businesses. Other parts of the city with more congested streets have successfully done this, including the 9th Street corridor, 18th street corridor, 14th street corridor, and M street in Georgetown. You will be surprised how adaptable cars, people, and neighborhoods are to the structures, even when the road is a major throughfare. The Streetery actually slows down traffic, creates more of a walkable neighborhood, and deepens the bond of the local community.

I do think Rosemary’s could benefit from a bit of a cosmetic facelift on its streetery, just as a preference. Some of these Streetery restaurants have done really amazing things with the structures- like Le Diplomat on 14th Street or Unconventional Diner on 9th. But let’s imagine a commercial corridor, that’s walkable, creates a strong sense of community and is visually beautiful. The streeteries in other parts of the city have whole corridors of outside dining that have helped their businesses thrive, even post pandemic.

Meaning that a lot of commuter traffic will just divert into residential neighborhood streets and closer to playgrounds and schools like Murch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of all the streeteries. They're squatting on public property, they're eyesores and they are very unsanitary.

This. And it’s effectively privatizing a public asset.

Roads for cars are privatizing public land for drivers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle.

Are you going back to the 1890’s when streetcars first came to CT Ave?

It is a struggle. Why should the neighborhoods on CT have to give up the amenities on CT Ave so drivers can blaze into the city and then back out to their suburbs and their amenities? Why should the concerns of the car commuters outweigh the concerns of the residents?

Thai is a false tradeoff, particularly now that Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead. Connecticut can both serve as a principal arterial roadway, provide street parking for customers and restaurant patrons, and have wide sidewalks for pedestrians in the neighborhood commercial strips.

Not acc to the Street Car Era PP. One or the other and the commuters demand their rush hour speedway!

The street car failed and didn't last long enough to be meaningul as anything other than a trivia question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of all the streeteries. They're squatting on public property, they're eyesores and they are very unsanitary.

This. And it’s effectively privatizing a public asset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle.

Are you going back to the 1890’s when streetcars first came to CT Ave?

It is a struggle. Why should the neighborhoods on CT have to give up the amenities on CT Ave so drivers can blaze into the city and then back out to their suburbs and their amenities? Why should the concerns of the car commuters outweigh the concerns of the residents?

Thai is a false tradeoff, particularly now that Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead. Connecticut can both serve as a principal arterial roadway, provide street parking for customers and restaurant patrons, and have wide sidewalks for pedestrians in the neighborhood commercial strips.

Not acc to the Street Car Era PP. One or the other and the commuters demand their rush hour speedway!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle.

Are you going back to the 1890’s when streetcars first came to CT Ave?

It is a struggle. Why should the neighborhoods on CT have to give up the amenities on CT Ave so drivers can blaze into the city and then back out to their suburbs and their amenities? Why should the concerns of the car commuters outweigh the concerns of the residents?

Thai is a false tradeoff, particularly now that Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead. Connecticut can both serve as a principal arterial roadway, provide street parking for customers and restaurant patrons, and have wide sidewalks for pedestrians in the neighborhood commercial strips.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle.

Are you going back to the 1890’s when streetcars first came to CT Ave?

It is a struggle. Why should the neighborhoods on CT have to give up the amenities on CT Ave so drivers can blaze into the city and then back out to their suburbs and their amenities? Why should the concerns of the car commuters outweigh the concerns of the residents?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

I either have a writing problem or people arguing with me have a reading problem. I specifically reference the street-car era and post-war era. I don't know of anything on this strip that predates those, but feel free to point something out.

Once again the point being that the commercial areas on CT predate the mass car-commuting phenomenon and appealed to a different use pattern than you actually see on CT these days. Something like 75%+ of all cars on this strip are "through" cars. Through cars just want to blaze by as fast as possible, which doesn't create a very inviting space. Hence the struggle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.

A lot of Connecticut Ave was “built out” much earlier than the 80s. That’s why several commercial areas on the avenue are in historic districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of all the streeteries. They're squatting on public property, they're eyesores and they are very unsanitary.

This. And it’s effectively privatizing a public asset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The term actually is “ streatery “ per DC government ( do a little research ) but either way spelling it correctly or not hardly rises to the level of “ sick”.

While one certainly need not wait for a crash to be “fatal” for a risk to be considered significant, or even discussed, in the case of Chevy Chase DC yes there was a fatal crash on a sidewalk cafe at the Parthenon. While not technically a streatery the wake up call at the sidewalk cafe was felt by all.

If streateries were universally safe to be in rush hour traffic lanes then the city would be authorizing them but in fact they aren’t. That’s the point. And that’s one reason the neighborhood has been alarmed.

The problem is that businesses sprouted up on CT back when car traffic was lower volume and much slower. Now CT is trying to be a through-road to downtown while also being a local main-street, and its doing neither well. It needs to pick one or the other, and move the other function somewhere else.

“Now trying to be a through-road to downtown”? Connecticut has been a major arterial commuter route throughout the post-World War II period, if not earlier. Where would you propose to move that “function”? To Reno Rd and 34th St?

The point being that there is a heck of a lot more traffic on CT now than there was during the streetcar era, or post war, or even up to the 80s when this strip was built out. A built environment that appealed to slow moving and light traffic headed out to the "country" is different than one needing to deal with heavy commuter traffic headed to suburban destinations with comparable amenities and the spaces haven't adapted.

So there is no reason to think that what used to work will work going forward. The whole corridor needs a redo.