Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination documents state that the Uptown is part of the most intact, unified Art Deco commercial strip in Washington, DC. Worth preserving, and not with 10 floor concrete and glass boxes on top.

Ok, so you prefer that it just sit empty for the next 100 years? That will be GREAT for Cleveland Park.

If the Uptown parcel's height is limited to 40-45 feet (which is the limit under current zoning), then the theater owners may have an incentive to sell to a nonprofit that wants to structure an Avalon-type solution. It wouldn't make economic sense under current zoning to redevelop the theater into housing and commercial

However, if the parcel is up zoned significantly, as Mary Cheh's comprehensive plan/FLUM change seems to faciliate so that the permissible height becomes 10 stories, then the outcome is very different. The property owners would be fools not to sell the property for dense mixed-use development, or try to develop it themselves. Indeed, the economic incentives for massive development become irresistible. Keeping the Uptown as a theater/arts venue becomes visually impossible.

Thanks a lot, Mary Cheh. You just cost the Washington community the Uptown.

The Uptown is closed. Mary Cheh has nothing to do with the financial viability of a white elephant theater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination documents state that the Uptown is part of the most intact, unified Art Deco commercial strip in Washington, DC. Worth preserving, and not with 10 floor concrete and glass boxes on top.

Ok, so you prefer that it just sit empty for the next 100 years? That will be GREAT for Cleveland Park.

If the Uptown parcel's height is limited to 40-45 feet (which is the limit under current zoning), then the theater owners may have an incentive to sell to a nonprofit that wants to structure an Avalon-type solution. It wouldn't make economic sense under current zoning to redevelop the theater into housing and commercial

However, if the parcel is up zoned significantly, as Mary Cheh's comprehensive plan/FLUM change seems to faciliate so that the permissible height becomes 10 stories, then the outcome is very different. The property owners would be fools not to sell the property for dense mixed-use development, or try to develop it themselves. Indeed, the economic incentives for massive development become irresistible. Keeping the Uptown as a theater/arts venue becomes visually impossible.

Thanks a lot, Mary Cheh. You just cost the Washington community the Uptown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination documents state that the Uptown is part of the most intact, unified Art Deco commercial strip in Washington, DC. Worth preserving, and not with 10 floor concrete and glass boxes on top.

Ok, so you prefer that it just sit empty for the next 100 years? That will be GREAT for Cleveland Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination documents state that the Uptown is part of the most intact, unified Art Deco commercial strip in Washington, DC. Worth preserving, and not with 10 floor concrete and glass boxes on top.

Ok, so you prefer that it just sit empty for the next 100 years? That will be GREAT for Cleveland Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination documents state that the Uptown is part of the most intact, unified Art Deco commercial strip in Washington, DC. Worth preserving, and not with 10 floor concrete and glass boxes on top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By two or more stories.

If it is not visible from the street perspective. Hard to do with the Uptown. Not to mention that it would desecrate an iconic, historic landmark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Yes they did this when I was a kid. I was thinking of this the other day because there is a last original townhouse people want GW (the owner) to "save" down.there and it's falling on deaf ears. Presumably something like this could work down there. However the Uptown is pristine. Whole block is. Why mess with a good thing. Don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:By two or more stories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's quite clear that Mary Cheh and her staff sold out to Big Development some time ago, and they don't value neighborhood character, green space or historic preservation very much. During Cheh's meeting with a Northwest DC community group on the Comprehensive Plan amendments a few months ago, her chief of staff stunned everyone by stating that trying to preserve the iconic Uptown Theater wasn't worth the effort and then asserted that dense, mixed-use development at the Uptown "is exactly what we want there." Cheh didn't correct him.

The Uptown is already protected by historic preservation. I am guessing his point is that the use may no longer be viable. If that is the case, there are two solutions. Either it sits empty as a former theater that no one is able to run or, it gets adaptively reused into some other use.

Which do you prefer?

How does an 8 - 10 floor building of upscale flats, rising from the Uptown's facade "protect" the Uptown? But this is what Cheh and her staff seem to want. The Upscale Flats at the Uptown wouldn't not longer be an iconic theater. And it wouldn't be historic preservation. It would be facadomy.

The iconic theater is no longer economically viable. So it can either sit there as an art-deco husk, or it can be adaptiveley reused into something else.


Pick one.

God forbid that the Uptown becomes another CVS. But if it's an historic landmark in an historic district, aren't they prohibited from building anything on top of it??

No, they are not prohibited from building top of it.

If it isn't viable as a movie theater, then what should happen with it?

If the Uptown is historically landmarked, doesn't adding 5 or 6 floors on top of it alter the landmark? How would that be allowed?

Look at just about every building in the 14th Street, Shaw or Downtown historic districts. Pretty routine stuff.

The Uptown isn’t downtown. And adding more than a story or two, set back so far that you couldn’t see it, would violate historical preservation guidelines. Of course, that may not stop the DC politicians who are eager to do the bidding of developers to “facadomize” historic districts like Cleveland Park.

link?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearing concerns, sure.

But if you think an ANC Commission has the power to tell a property owner what to do with their property who is controlling their property within the boundaries of the law, then no.

They can work with the neighborhood to present an appealing alternative. Also, my sense in DC is the law gets a little fudgy when the ANC and Council look the other way or the Mayor exerts pressure. Has this never happened? So they definitely have an obligation given neighborhood concerns to be educated and vigilant to the law and make sure its being followed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's quite clear that Mary Cheh and her staff sold out to Big Development some time ago, and they don't value neighborhood character, green space or historic preservation very much. During Cheh's meeting with a Northwest DC community group on the Comprehensive Plan amendments a few months ago, her chief of staff stunned everyone by stating that trying to preserve the iconic Uptown Theater wasn't worth the effort and then asserted that dense, mixed-use development at the Uptown "is exactly what we want there." Cheh didn't correct him.

The Uptown is already protected by historic preservation. I am guessing his point is that the use may no longer be viable. If that is the case, there are two solutions. Either it sits empty as a former theater that no one is able to run or, it gets adaptively reused into some other use.

Which do you prefer?

How does an 8 - 10 floor building of upscale flats, rising from the Uptown's facade "protect" the Uptown? But this is what Cheh and her staff seem to want. The Upscale Flats at the Uptown wouldn't not longer be an iconic theater. And it wouldn't be historic preservation. It would be facadomy.

The iconic theater is no longer economically viable. So it can either sit there as an art-deco husk, or it can be adaptiveley reused into something else.


Pick one.

God forbid that the Uptown becomes another CVS. But if it's an historic landmark in an historic district, aren't they prohibited from building anything on top of it??

No, they are not prohibited from building top of it.

If it isn't viable as a movie theater, then what should happen with it?

If the Uptown is historically landmarked, doesn't adding 5 or 6 floors on top of it alter the landmark? How would that be allowed?

Look at just about every building in the 14th Street, Shaw or Downtown historic districts. Pretty routine stuff.

The Uptown isn’t downtown. And adding more than a story or two, set back so far that you couldn’t see it, would violate historical preservation guidelines. Of course, that may not stop the DC politicians who are eager to do the bidding of developers to “facadomize” historic districts like Cleveland Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.

2000 Pennsylvania Ave, "Red Lion Row," is an example of how facadomy is not historic preservation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Pennsylvania_Avenue#/media/File:2000Penn.jpg

Anonymous wrote:I prefer facadomizing to razing, but would prefer even more that the building remain pristine. Facadomizing gets pretty Disney/new Times Square pretty fast.