DDOT has released the latest round of expansion for the popular Capital Bikeshare program. New stations to be installed by March include:
Connecticut and Nebraska Avenues NW
Connecticut Ave and Albemarle St NW
Wisconsin Ave and Fessenden St NW
Wisconsin Ave and Veazy Street NW
The subsequent round of expansion will feature stations at the following locations:
Wisconsin Ave and Ingomar Street NW
Brandywine St and Wisconsin Ave NW
Connecticut Ave and Porter Street NW
Massachusetts Ave and 48th Street NW
A map of these stations can be found here
Monday, December 17, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Chevy Chase Development
There has been some chatter on the Chevy Chase Listserv about a development proposal for the large tract of undeveloped land bordered by Connecticut Avenue, Military Road and Kanawha Street. Known now as 5333 Connecticut Avenue, the local residents are attempting to raise concerns with city officials through a petition campaign.
Unlike other development proposals such as Cathedral Commons or The Bond which required Zoning Commission review, this project is being proposed by the developer as a matter of right proposition. In other words, there appears to be little to no opportunity for public input because the proposal complies in every way with current zoning rules.
On the listserv, one resident suggests:
Chevy Chase’s largest development in perhaps a half century is on the verge of
breaking ground without an iota of local input, or even any notice.
Many neighbors think this is just plan unfair. And they’re going door to door
beginning this weekend with what information about the project we've been able
to gather in the days since we first learned of it. They’ll also have petitions
and letters calling on Mary Cheh, our councilmember, Mayor Gray and Nicholas
Majett, the head of the city department that's been handing out municipal
approvals for the project, to help us get our concerns heard and addressed.
So it begs the question, what is appropriate in this case? Even though it is a matter of right development, should there be opportunity for residents to have a recourse? Are there extenuating circumstances that the rest of the public isn't aware of? Is there any irony that many of these same residents probably opposed the historic district proposal, which may have had impact on the scale of the development proposal?
Unlike other development proposals such as Cathedral Commons or The Bond which required Zoning Commission review, this project is being proposed by the developer as a matter of right proposition. In other words, there appears to be little to no opportunity for public input because the proposal complies in every way with current zoning rules.
On the listserv, one resident suggests:
Chevy Chase’s largest development in perhaps a half century is on the verge of
breaking ground without an iota of local input, or even any notice.
Many neighbors think this is just plan unfair. And they’re going door to door
beginning this weekend with what information about the project we've been able
to gather in the days since we first learned of it. They’ll also have petitions
and letters calling on Mary Cheh, our councilmember, Mayor Gray and Nicholas
Majett, the head of the city department that's been handing out municipal
approvals for the project, to help us get our concerns heard and addressed.
So it begs the question, what is appropriate in this case? Even though it is a matter of right development, should there be opportunity for residents to have a recourse? Are there extenuating circumstances that the rest of the public isn't aware of? Is there any irony that many of these same residents probably opposed the historic district proposal, which may have had impact on the scale of the development proposal?
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Forest Hills and Bike Lanes
The Forest Hills Connection has a description and survey for alterations to Broadbranch Road connecting Beech Drive in Rock Creek Park to Linnean Avenue in Forest Hills/Chevy Chase.
This is a good opportunity to learn more about the proposals and weigh in. There is also an official website with contact information for the consulting engineers.
This is a good opportunity to learn more about the proposals and weigh in. There is also an official website with contact information for the consulting engineers.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Zoning Regulation Revisions
From the District of Columbia Office of Planning:
The District of Columbia Office of Planning is holding eight community meetings to discuss draft proposed changes to the existing Zoning Ordinance (11 DCMR).
The current zoning regulations have not been thoroughly updated since 1958. The Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses the issue:
"The Zoning Regulations themselves need substantial revision and reorganization, ranging from new definitions to updated development and design standards, and even new zones." (IM-1.3)
The Office of Planning has been working on revisions and reorganization of the zoning regulations for the last four years. With input from a task force, topic-focused working groups, and numerous community meetings, as well as general guidance from the Zoning Commission, the Office of Planning has prepared draft proposals for modernizing the zoning regulations.
At the upcoming community meetings, the Office of Planning will describe the process to date, present the draft proposals, and solicit and listen to community feedback. We remain open to making additional changes to the draft proposals, based on your comments, before they are taken to the Zoning Commission for consideration at public hearings.
The community meetings are open to everyone. The meetings will be the same in every ward, so you should feel free to attend the one that is most convenient for you.
This notice is to inform you of the community meetings dates and times:
January 8, 2013 Tuesday, 6:30 P.M - 8:30 P.M. Ward 3
The District of Columbia Office of Planning is holding eight community meetings to discuss draft proposed changes to the existing Zoning Ordinance (11 DCMR).
The current zoning regulations have not been thoroughly updated since 1958. The Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses the issue:
"The Zoning Regulations themselves need substantial revision and reorganization, ranging from new definitions to updated development and design standards, and even new zones." (IM-1.3)
The Office of Planning has been working on revisions and reorganization of the zoning regulations for the last four years. With input from a task force, topic-focused working groups, and numerous community meetings, as well as general guidance from the Zoning Commission, the Office of Planning has prepared draft proposals for modernizing the zoning regulations.
At the upcoming community meetings, the Office of Planning will describe the process to date, present the draft proposals, and solicit and listen to community feedback. We remain open to making additional changes to the draft proposals, based on your comments, before they are taken to the Zoning Commission for consideration at public hearings.
The community meetings are open to everyone. The meetings will be the same in every ward, so you should feel free to attend the one that is most convenient for you.
This notice is to inform you of the community meetings dates and times:
January 8, 2013 Tuesday, 6:30 P.M - 8:30 P.M. Ward 3
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Cathedral Commons, At Long Last
DC MUD has a small review of the groundbreaking for the new Wisconsin Avenue Giant, or Cathedral Commons in Cleveland Park. Expected completion is 2014, or 15 years after the first proposals hit the community.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Repeal the Anti-Food Zoning in Cleveland Park
Cleveland Park resident Herb Caudill has written an excellent summary about the 25% zoning overlay restricting food uses on the Connecticut Avenue commercial strip. With a new ANC and more residents clamoring for this change, there is an opportunity to finally get a decent breakfast place or some more carry out options in the neighborhood.
If you think some loosening here is a good idea, fill out the petition today!
If you think some loosening here is a good idea, fill out the petition today!
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Cleveland Park Antics
So someone has decided to game a listserv poll. Read about it at the City Paper
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Zoning Overlay: More Food in Cleveland Park?
The every two year discussion about the restaurant zoning overlay is taking place on the Cleveland Park listserv. Recall that about 25 years ago, neighborhood leaders, fearing the "Adams Morganing" of their neighborhood took two measures. First, they created a historic district to help manage changes to the Connecticut Avenue commercial strip in the vicinity of the Metro station. Second, they were able to convince the city to install an overlay restricting the percentage of storefronts that can be dedicated to restaurants.
In the early 2000's, clarifications were made with the DC Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs related to how the 25% was measured and what kind of food places counted towards the cap.
In the intervening years, the wishes for the desired book store and hardware stores, while still present, seem to be measured with the reality that the viability of such places in a neighborhood like Cleveland Park are pretty slim. Instead, non-food places include a number of tanning salons, nail salons and other uses that some in the community feel are less desirable.
In this era, with internet based retail and more flexible working patterns, the neighborhood experience is evolving. More people want to be able to conduct meetings at coffee houses, enjoy a unique meal or be able to carry out lunch or dinner in an expedient manner. Corridors such as 14th Street, U Street, H Street, or 8th Street South East and the Navy Yards are transforming to very vibrant and unique places based on the services available.
Cleveland Park, on the other hand, remains relatively static in comparison. It is a wonderful neighborhood with fantastic building stock and natural foot traffic based on visitors to the National Zoo and the density of apartment buildings and condos along Connecticut Avenue to the north and south of the commercial strip.
In a 2008 poll, neighborhood listserv members supported the removal or relaxing of the zoning overlay by a factor of 70%. While this is not a scientific survey, it is one measure of public sentiment. So again, there is a new poll to measure public sentiment. Maybe this time, the ANC and Community Associations will take note that residents of the community really do not like this artificial barrier to improving realistic and improved choices in the community.
If you are a member of the listserv, vote now!
In the early 2000's, clarifications were made with the DC Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs related to how the 25% was measured and what kind of food places counted towards the cap.
In the intervening years, the wishes for the desired book store and hardware stores, while still present, seem to be measured with the reality that the viability of such places in a neighborhood like Cleveland Park are pretty slim. Instead, non-food places include a number of tanning salons, nail salons and other uses that some in the community feel are less desirable.
In this era, with internet based retail and more flexible working patterns, the neighborhood experience is evolving. More people want to be able to conduct meetings at coffee houses, enjoy a unique meal or be able to carry out lunch or dinner in an expedient manner. Corridors such as 14th Street, U Street, H Street, or 8th Street South East and the Navy Yards are transforming to very vibrant and unique places based on the services available.
Cleveland Park, on the other hand, remains relatively static in comparison. It is a wonderful neighborhood with fantastic building stock and natural foot traffic based on visitors to the National Zoo and the density of apartment buildings and condos along Connecticut Avenue to the north and south of the commercial strip.
In a 2008 poll, neighborhood listserv members supported the removal or relaxing of the zoning overlay by a factor of 70%. While this is not a scientific survey, it is one measure of public sentiment. So again, there is a new poll to measure public sentiment. Maybe this time, the ANC and Community Associations will take note that residents of the community really do not like this artificial barrier to improving realistic and improved choices in the community.
If you are a member of the listserv, vote now!
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Streetcar Barns and Preservation
While mostly about the proposed streetcar barn near Spingarn High School, this City Paper article has a significant discussion surrounding the Western Bus Garage in Friendship Heights, and the prospects for redevelopment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Incremental Updates on Babes
As the Babes development proposal ebbs towards the zoning commission later this fall, a Memorandum of Understanding has been posted on the developers website. In sum, the ANC was able to get the developer to agree to undergrounding the utilities on the site and further codifies the development without parking. This seems to be a major win for the community as well as providing sufficient relief to alleviate concerns about resident owned cars parking in adjacent residential areas.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Tenley Library: Lost Opportunity
The Coalition for Smarter Growth released a report entitled "Public Land for Public Good". The report (PDF) chronicles many of the achievements afforded out of good use of public resources. Of course, in Ward 3, there is a different tale. From the report:
Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School and Benning Library
Though situated on opposite ends of the District, the Tenley/Friendship and Benning Road libraries both went through contentious redevelopment processes that failed to result in mixed-use libraries or affordable housing. Under the best of circumstances, a mixed-use approach faces many hurdles, but the initial conditions in these cases were even more challenging. In 2004, DCPL closed these branch libraries. It cancelled the construction contracts, and then entertained mixed-use proposals. In addition to the original mistake by DCPL of prematurely closing the libraries, the failure of city agencies to work together, to have a well-structured public process, or to methodically evaluate the alternatives doomed opportunities for mixed-use projects and additional community benefits.
Both neighborhood libraries, along with the Shaw and Anacostia branches, were closed at the end of 2004 in preparation for reconstruction. In 2004, DCPL awarded a $20 million contract to Hess Construction Company to rebuild all four libraries. However, anticipating recommendations from a mayoral task force on D.C. libraries and determining that Hess’s designs would not meet national or task force’s standards, DCPL terminated the contract, having already spent $3 million.79 This was the first complication in what became a protracted redevelopment process for these facilities.
At various times and to varying degrees, city officials considered the concept of redeveloping the Benning and Tenley libraries as mixed-use facilities, pairing the new libraries with residential units, including affordable housing and possibly retail. Because various individuals and groups in both communities expressed strong resistance to these proposals, in the end only single-use libraries were built on the sites, missing opportunities to include new mixed-income housing near a Metro station and save the city millions of dollars.
For Tenleytown, local developer Roadside Development offered an unsolicited proposal in 2005 for a mixed-use library combined with school renovations for the adjacent Janney Elementary School.80 A local community group, Ward 3 Vision, picked up the idea and urged DCPL and DMPED to solicit bids for a mixed-use library combined with accelerated school improvements rather than simply replacing the single-use library. The high value site faces the Tenleytown Metro station and a commercial hub on Wisconsin Avenue. The site was a rare opportunity for affordable housing in this affluent part of the District of Columbia.
Initially, parents representing the school through the Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) supported a public-private partnership that would simultaneously redevelop the library site while expediting renewal of Janney’s outdated facilities. 81 The joint library-school renovation proposal would free-up playground space by removing portable classrooms and a parking lot, through building shared underground parking.82 After releasing an RFP in October 2007, DMPED modified the original RFP in early 2008. The revised request specified that residential units could not be built directly over the library. To accommodate residential units under this restriction, the resulting designs would have decreased outdoor play space.83
This debilitating change appears to have been predicated on a desire to allow the library construction to proceed independent of other elements of the project and prompted the SIT to object to the loss of the play space. Frustration with the process grew with parents worried about the impact on the school and residents weary of waiting for a new, permanent library. Some residents expressed their frustration by protesting the July 2008 news conference announcing the city’s selection of LCOR as the site’s developer.84
The plan continued to lose support from the school community and city officials. Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown sent a letter in late October 2008 expressing their view that the library should be built as a single-use facility separate from any mixed-use plans on the site.85 Due to continued delays and mounting community pressure, the DCPL Board in late 2008 unilaterally declared that it would construct the originally planned single-use facility at the site.86 Deputy Mayor Neil Albert continued to push for dialogue between the city, LCOR, and community groups and indicated that LCOR would be open to amending its plans to respond to resident feedback. For example, in a letter to Councilmembers Cheh and Brown in January 2009, Albert indicated that LCOR was addressing the Janney SIT’s concerns regarding green space, modifying designs so that Janney would see “a net gain of 300 square feet of green space at the school.”87
Eventually, Albert and Mayor Fenty acquiesced to the DCPL’s decision to construct a single-use library. In March 2009, Mayor Fenty announced that the school and library construction would proceed without a housing component, though one could be added in the future.88 This change meant the city would forgo the five million dollars in savings on library construction that the mixed-use deal would have provided.
Despite cancellation of the mixed-use public-private project and the loss of the prepaid ground lease for the school improvements, the administration nonetheless moved capital funds from other schools to be able to do a full modernization and expansion for Janney. This put both construction projects ahead of schedule.
The accelerated pace was originally justified only because the funding stream from the public-private partnership would have freed up city funds for other schools. While Janney had severe crowding and building condition needs, other schools faced significant needs too. With the elimination of the benefits of the funding stream to the city from the joint-development, moving forward with an accelerated free-standing modernization of Janney represented a shift in public funding priorities. The high costs of the Janney modernization and expansion increased inequitable school expenditures and contributed to the disproportionate share of school modernization funds spent in Ward 3 public schools over the last decade.89 The public-private partnership model proposed for this renovation would have offered a more equitable way to meet the needs of the in-demand school while not shifting resources away from less affluent areas.
A new, stand-alone Tenley/Friendship library opened in 2011. DPMED paid for the incorporation of $1 million worth of structural supports to allow housing to be constructed next to and partially above the library in the future, but many doubt such an addition will be feasible or offer much affordability.
Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School and Benning Library
Though situated on opposite ends of the District, the Tenley/Friendship and Benning Road libraries both went through contentious redevelopment processes that failed to result in mixed-use libraries or affordable housing. Under the best of circumstances, a mixed-use approach faces many hurdles, but the initial conditions in these cases were even more challenging. In 2004, DCPL closed these branch libraries. It cancelled the construction contracts, and then entertained mixed-use proposals. In addition to the original mistake by DCPL of prematurely closing the libraries, the failure of city agencies to work together, to have a well-structured public process, or to methodically evaluate the alternatives doomed opportunities for mixed-use projects and additional community benefits.
Both neighborhood libraries, along with the Shaw and Anacostia branches, were closed at the end of 2004 in preparation for reconstruction. In 2004, DCPL awarded a $20 million contract to Hess Construction Company to rebuild all four libraries. However, anticipating recommendations from a mayoral task force on D.C. libraries and determining that Hess’s designs would not meet national or task force’s standards, DCPL terminated the contract, having already spent $3 million.79 This was the first complication in what became a protracted redevelopment process for these facilities.
At various times and to varying degrees, city officials considered the concept of redeveloping the Benning and Tenley libraries as mixed-use facilities, pairing the new libraries with residential units, including affordable housing and possibly retail. Because various individuals and groups in both communities expressed strong resistance to these proposals, in the end only single-use libraries were built on the sites, missing opportunities to include new mixed-income housing near a Metro station and save the city millions of dollars.
For Tenleytown, local developer Roadside Development offered an unsolicited proposal in 2005 for a mixed-use library combined with school renovations for the adjacent Janney Elementary School.80 A local community group, Ward 3 Vision, picked up the idea and urged DCPL and DMPED to solicit bids for a mixed-use library combined with accelerated school improvements rather than simply replacing the single-use library. The high value site faces the Tenleytown Metro station and a commercial hub on Wisconsin Avenue. The site was a rare opportunity for affordable housing in this affluent part of the District of Columbia.
Initially, parents representing the school through the Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) supported a public-private partnership that would simultaneously redevelop the library site while expediting renewal of Janney’s outdated facilities. 81 The joint library-school renovation proposal would free-up playground space by removing portable classrooms and a parking lot, through building shared underground parking.82 After releasing an RFP in October 2007, DMPED modified the original RFP in early 2008. The revised request specified that residential units could not be built directly over the library. To accommodate residential units under this restriction, the resulting designs would have decreased outdoor play space.83
This debilitating change appears to have been predicated on a desire to allow the library construction to proceed independent of other elements of the project and prompted the SIT to object to the loss of the play space. Frustration with the process grew with parents worried about the impact on the school and residents weary of waiting for a new, permanent library. Some residents expressed their frustration by protesting the July 2008 news conference announcing the city’s selection of LCOR as the site’s developer.84
The plan continued to lose support from the school community and city officials. Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown sent a letter in late October 2008 expressing their view that the library should be built as a single-use facility separate from any mixed-use plans on the site.85 Due to continued delays and mounting community pressure, the DCPL Board in late 2008 unilaterally declared that it would construct the originally planned single-use facility at the site.86 Deputy Mayor Neil Albert continued to push for dialogue between the city, LCOR, and community groups and indicated that LCOR would be open to amending its plans to respond to resident feedback. For example, in a letter to Councilmembers Cheh and Brown in January 2009, Albert indicated that LCOR was addressing the Janney SIT’s concerns regarding green space, modifying designs so that Janney would see “a net gain of 300 square feet of green space at the school.”87
Eventually, Albert and Mayor Fenty acquiesced to the DCPL’s decision to construct a single-use library. In March 2009, Mayor Fenty announced that the school and library construction would proceed without a housing component, though one could be added in the future.88 This change meant the city would forgo the five million dollars in savings on library construction that the mixed-use deal would have provided.
Despite cancellation of the mixed-use public-private project and the loss of the prepaid ground lease for the school improvements, the administration nonetheless moved capital funds from other schools to be able to do a full modernization and expansion for Janney. This put both construction projects ahead of schedule.
The accelerated pace was originally justified only because the funding stream from the public-private partnership would have freed up city funds for other schools. While Janney had severe crowding and building condition needs, other schools faced significant needs too. With the elimination of the benefits of the funding stream to the city from the joint-development, moving forward with an accelerated free-standing modernization of Janney represented a shift in public funding priorities. The high costs of the Janney modernization and expansion increased inequitable school expenditures and contributed to the disproportionate share of school modernization funds spent in Ward 3 public schools over the last decade.89 The public-private partnership model proposed for this renovation would have offered a more equitable way to meet the needs of the in-demand school while not shifting resources away from less affluent areas.
A new, stand-alone Tenley/Friendship library opened in 2011. DPMED paid for the incorporation of $1 million worth of structural supports to allow housing to be constructed next to and partially above the library in the future, but many doubt such an addition will be feasible or offer much affordability.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Van Mess to Van Ness?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Hearst Elementary Renovation
ANC 3F Commissioner Adam Tope updates the community on the planned Heast renovation for 2013.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Construction Starts at Cathedral Commons
After almost 14 years, ground has finally broken on the former Wisconsin Avenue Giant. DC Metro Urban Diary has a good update.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Stoddert Soccer and DPR - at odds over fields
Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post covers the squeeze on Stoddert Soccer for field space.
A lot of kids, not very many fields.
A lot of kids, not very many fields.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
ANC 3C Update on Wisconsin Avenue Giant
ANC 3C to ratify Giant Construction Management Agreement
At long last, ANC 3C intends to consider and vote on ratifying a negotiated construction management agreement with Giant and Bozzuto Development. We submitted a draft Construction Management Agreement to Giant in June 2011. Serious negotiations began last winter. The four ANC commissioners whose SMDs are contiguous to the development site have been involved in meeting with the parties and exchanging drafts up until this summer when the final format and provisions began to take final shape.
We feel that the agreement is reasonable and provides good protections for the parts of our community that will be most directly affected by the construction. We did not get agreement on everything that we proposed but neither did Giant. I urge you to go to the anc3c.org website to read the CMA that is linked to our September 18 public meeting agenda. Among the provisions in the agreement are:
* establishment of a liaison committee with public meetings and
reports to the ANC
* pre-construction surveys of homes or buildings in the potential
zone of impact as determined by Giant's engineers (those have already been completed)
* regular public notification of upcoming construction activities
throughout the construction period
* ban on construction-related parking on streets or alleys within a
multiple block radius of development (map is attached to CMA document on ANC website)
* ban on construction vehicles driving on local streets rather than
arterial roadways to or from the development site
* Saturday work hours between 8AM-5PM
ANC 3C has asked representatives of Giant and Bozzuto Construction to
attend the ANC to provide a brief update on the construction plans for the next few months. This would not repeat previous presentations to the community, but would rather focus on the planned activities for the next few months. The CMA discussion is scheduled at the top of agenda and we expect this part of the agenda to conclude by 8PM.
The meeting begins at 7:30PM and will be held in the community room of the Second District Police Station. Please note that meeting is on Tuesday this month.
Nancy MacWood
ANC 3C09
At long last, ANC 3C intends to consider and vote on ratifying a negotiated construction management agreement with Giant and Bozzuto Development. We submitted a draft Construction Management Agreement to Giant in June 2011. Serious negotiations began last winter. The four ANC commissioners whose SMDs are contiguous to the development site have been involved in meeting with the parties and exchanging drafts up until this summer when the final format and provisions began to take final shape.
We feel that the agreement is reasonable and provides good protections for the parts of our community that will be most directly affected by the construction. We did not get agreement on everything that we proposed but neither did Giant. I urge you to go to the anc3c.org website to read the CMA that is linked to our September 18 public meeting agenda. Among the provisions in the agreement are:
* establishment of a liaison committee with public meetings and
reports to the ANC
* pre-construction surveys of homes or buildings in the potential
zone of impact as determined by Giant's engineers (those have already been completed)
* regular public notification of upcoming construction activities
throughout the construction period
* ban on construction-related parking on streets or alleys within a
multiple block radius of development (map is attached to CMA document on ANC website)
* ban on construction vehicles driving on local streets rather than
arterial roadways to or from the development site
* Saturday work hours between 8AM-5PM
ANC 3C has asked representatives of Giant and Bozzuto Construction to
attend the ANC to provide a brief update on the construction plans for the next few months. This would not repeat previous presentations to the community, but would rather focus on the planned activities for the next few months. The CMA discussion is scheduled at the top of agenda and we expect this part of the agenda to conclude by 8PM.
The meeting begins at 7:30PM and will be held in the community room of the Second District Police Station. Please note that meeting is on Tuesday this month.
Nancy MacWood
ANC 3C09
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Saturday, September 01, 2012
New Zoning and Ward 3
The District is embarking on a city-wide zoning revision. While this is not solely a Ward 3 issue, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion on various community listservs. Below is a recent, very relevant post:
we have centuries of evidence to see what neighborhoods look like
without parking minimums. I recently stumbled on this great little piece
entitled "Legalize Georgetown" (http://bit.ly/QKVm6a), written by David
Alpert in 2008, back when the zoning rewrite process was just getting
underway. He points out that some of DC's most beloved neighborhoods would
be illegal under today's zoning code.
"If Georgetown burned down tomorrow, then the zoning code should allow it
to be rebuilt similar to the way it is today. If someone wanted to expand
the rowhouses of Capitol Hill to vacant blocks in Southeast they should be
able to. But that's not true...
"My current building in Dupont has 13 apartments and zero parking spaces.
If it were rebuilt today, it would need an empty lot next door that's about
the same size as the building to fit the seven spaces required under
current zoning. It would mean more cars crossing the sidewalk, and one of
the prettiest blocks in Dupont would be much less. And having these spaces
would encourage more driving and raise the cost of living here."
I would add Cleveland Park to that list; many of the grand buildings lining
Connecticut Avenue predate the zoning code and would be much less grand if
they were subject to the 1950s rules. For that matter most of the pre-WWII
duplexes and townhouses in the neighborhood wouldn't be allowed.
None of the great cities of the world rose up under the constraints of
restrictive zoning codes or parking minimums, nor could they have. The most
beautiful parts of Paris, Rome, London, New York - and Washington DC -
would have been prohibited, or scarred with ugly parking lots and garages.
It's the zoning excesses of the 1950s that were reckless experiments, and
their unintended consequences - from the oceanic parking lots and strip
malls of Rockville Pike to the bleak megablocks of Southwest DC - are plain
for all to see. Today's zoning reforms take a small step towards undoing
that damage.
Residential parking scarcity is a problem; but the correct solution, as
I've argued before, is to price parking on public land in a way that
reflects its value, not to impose arbitrary Soviet-style supply quotas on
developers.
we have centuries of evidence to see what neighborhoods look like
without parking minimums. I recently stumbled on this great little piece
entitled "Legalize Georgetown" (http://bit.ly/QKVm6a), written by David
Alpert in 2008, back when the zoning rewrite process was just getting
underway. He points out that some of DC's most beloved neighborhoods would
be illegal under today's zoning code.
"If Georgetown burned down tomorrow, then the zoning code should allow it
to be rebuilt similar to the way it is today. If someone wanted to expand
the rowhouses of Capitol Hill to vacant blocks in Southeast they should be
able to. But that's not true...
"My current building in Dupont has 13 apartments and zero parking spaces.
If it were rebuilt today, it would need an empty lot next door that's about
the same size as the building to fit the seven spaces required under
current zoning. It would mean more cars crossing the sidewalk, and one of
the prettiest blocks in Dupont would be much less. And having these spaces
would encourage more driving and raise the cost of living here."
I would add Cleveland Park to that list; many of the grand buildings lining
Connecticut Avenue predate the zoning code and would be much less grand if
they were subject to the 1950s rules. For that matter most of the pre-WWII
duplexes and townhouses in the neighborhood wouldn't be allowed.
None of the great cities of the world rose up under the constraints of
restrictive zoning codes or parking minimums, nor could they have. The most
beautiful parts of Paris, Rome, London, New York - and Washington DC -
would have been prohibited, or scarred with ugly parking lots and garages.
It's the zoning excesses of the 1950s that were reckless experiments, and
their unintended consequences - from the oceanic parking lots and strip
malls of Rockville Pike to the bleak megablocks of Southwest DC - are plain
for all to see. Today's zoning reforms take a small step towards undoing
that damage.
Residential parking scarcity is a problem; but the correct solution, as
I've argued before, is to price parking on public land in a way that
reflects its value, not to impose arbitrary Soviet-style supply quotas on
developers.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friendship Neighborhood Association
In a recent post to the Chevy Chase Yahoo Group, one activist noted:
I testified on behalf of Friendship Neighborhood Association and asked the
Commission to reconsider some of the more sweeping and untested recommendations
in OP's proposal. I pointed out that OP was recommending the elimination of
minimum parking requirements in areas where there was a potential for a
spillover effect, when high-density residential and commercial development is
near low-density residential neighborhoods. At an earlier hearing, I had
provided a map of the low-density residential neighborhoods that were most at
risk.
So who or what is the FNA?
An internet search doesn't yield much. There is this website. It doesn't appear to have been updated since 2009. It also doesn't list any meeting times or dates. It also doesn't really list how to become a member, other than sending an email to an address that may, or may not work.
Is this an organization that carries any weight with the zoning commission, the ANC or other political bodies? According to the website, the organization was created under the District of Columbia's Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-231). Does that mean there are, or are not any tax or other filings?
Shouldn't there be some sort of threshold of public engagement, public input or other means of gauging sentiment of a community to even be able to carry the banner of representing that community?
Many neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups have extensive information and outreach available on the web or through social media. They actively recruit new members and inform their constituencies of ongoing concerns in their communities. This appears not to be the case with this organization.
I testified on behalf of Friendship Neighborhood Association and asked the
Commission to reconsider some of the more sweeping and untested recommendations
in OP's proposal. I pointed out that OP was recommending the elimination of
minimum parking requirements in areas where there was a potential for a
spillover effect, when high-density residential and commercial development is
near low-density residential neighborhoods. At an earlier hearing, I had
provided a map of the low-density residential neighborhoods that were most at
risk.
So who or what is the FNA?
An internet search doesn't yield much. There is this website. It doesn't appear to have been updated since 2009. It also doesn't list any meeting times or dates. It also doesn't really list how to become a member, other than sending an email to an address that may, or may not work.
Is this an organization that carries any weight with the zoning commission, the ANC or other political bodies? According to the website, the organization was created under the District of Columbia's Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-231). Does that mean there are, or are not any tax or other filings?
Shouldn't there be some sort of threshold of public engagement, public input or other means of gauging sentiment of a community to even be able to carry the banner of representing that community?
Many neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups have extensive information and outreach available on the web or through social media. They actively recruit new members and inform their constituencies of ongoing concerns in their communities. This appears not to be the case with this organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)