Anonymous wrote:The size and shape of the Volvo site make it an unlikely location for a supermarket.

Wasn't the selling off of a broken down Safeway with minimal traffic proof that a new supermarket is what is NOT needed there. Probably safe to say no more need for a Volvo dealer, since no one buys Volvos any more. All part of the throwback-80s Tenleytown. And we like it that way!

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry -- GDS has a crack team of HS students working out its transportation management program for the new project.

A veritable (or is it "Veritas") roster of transportation aces....

Don't worry -- GDS has a crack team of HS students working out its transportation management program for the new project.

Anonymous wrote:Is it better to have things spread out and be forced to further clog roads, or better to have thing closer together where walking and biking are options? Given DC is in the center of the metropolitan area, it seems like this is where density should go.

This all sounds so wonderful in concept . . . until you realize that after years of cheer leading for more intensive development along the Wisconsin corridor and saying there would be negligible traffic impact, recently DDOT has become quite concerned about congestion and carrying capacity on the Wisconsin arterial. Their solution: make it easier for Wisconsin traffic to divert to alternative routes, including through residential streets. (According to Sidwell neighbors, DDOT wanted Sidwell to open Tilden St through their campus in anticipation of redevelopment of the nearby Fannie Mae site, but this was a nonstarter for Sidwell.)

This is a significant and concerning philosophical change for DDOT under Bowser, which under Fenty and Gray championed traffic calming to make neighborhood streets safer. Another it's yet another major reason for AU Park and Tenleytown to be wary of Greedy Developer Schemes.

The size and shape of the Volvo site make it an unlikely location for a supermarket.

In short, good from a smart growth perspective, inconvenient from GDS administration perspective, GDS PR prople on DCUM spinning reason why it shouldn't happen.

Anonymous wrote:What you are going to force housing on GDS faculty? Maybe there is a spouse that works in a location or kids that go to a school that doesn't make Tenleytown convenient. The world doesn't revolve around Wisconsin Avenue.

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to live with all their co-workers? Anyway, this is a silly tangent to be having a spat about.

At the prep school I went to in an expensive city, a lot of young faculty and their families lived on campus. It was not a boarding school, but the school obviously had the foresight to think of housing for its faculty. It wasn't obligatory of course, but for people who don't want a commute and could use the subsidized housing, it was a great option.

Btw, living above a grocery store is awesome. We did it as DINKS and loved it.

Or, if the courts get involved (as in the Durant case, it might actually come down to what the zoning code says.

But DC gets to decide. It is obviously a political question -- and it comes down to the number of people and amounts of money in play.

Is it better to have things spread out and be forced to further clog roads, or better to have thing closer together where walking and biking are options? Given DC is in the center of the metropolitan area, it seems like this is where density should go.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Their project is WAY too dense and the usage too intense to be crammed up against single family homes. Period. Full stop. Anyone with any grasp of good zoning practices and that is not completely beholden to developers whose families are safely ensconced in Potomac or taken in by the mystical mantra of "smart growth" would recognize that there need to be "buffer" zones when moving from heavy duty commercial to single family homes. If the city starts losing the families and tax base of AU Park to the suburbs, we will be right back to the 80s and 90s when people felt sorry for you if you lived in the District. The city should be very wary of throwing its lot in with the transiency of apartment buildings at the cost of losing the single family home tax base.[/quote]
No it's a city. Density needs to increase.[/quote]

Sounds a lot like the new homeless shelter to be crammed against family homes in cathedral commons. Tenleytown us starting to look a lot less sleepy, a.lot more trafficked, a lot less parking, a lot more homeless hanging out streetside and under bushes.Is the intention it resemble Columbia heights? Target coming next? I'd like to hear from the anc and Mary cheh on how all these little changes add up to big change and whether its intentional/mindful? Oh, add sdwell lower school in the mix.

7 or 8 stories is not a skyscraper. Maybe the whole conversation needs to be reframed.

Or maybe you should move to Mayberry.

Anonymous wrote:Christ, it isn't like these are skyscrapers in mid-town Manhattan.

And let's keep it that way.

Christ, it isn't like these are skyscrapers in mid-town Manhattan.

[quote=Anonymous]Their project is WAY too dense and the usage too intense to be crammed up against single family homes. Period. Full stop. Anyone with any grasp of good zoning practices and that is not completely beholden to developers whose families are safely ensconced in Potomac or taken in by the mystical mantra of "smart growth" would recognize that there need to be "buffer" zones when moving from heavy duty commercial to single family homes. If the city starts losing the families and tax base of AU Park to the suburbs, we will be right back to the 80s and 90s when people felt sorry for you if you lived in the District. The city should be very wary of throwing its lot in with the transiency of apartment buildings at the cost of losing the single family home tax base.[/quote]
No it's a city. Density needs to increase.