With Safeway and library, Tenleytown takes two steps forward and one step back

Development

With Safeway and library, Tenleytown takes two steps forward and one step back

by Neil Flanagan • September 25, 2009 12:34 pm

This past week, Safeway revealed their plans to renovate the Safeway at 42nd and Ellicott Streets, along Wisconsin Avenue in the northern reaches of Tenleytown. What they propose (huge PDF) is a dramatic improvement over the bunker-like current building, and will enliven a dreary section of the neighborhood. However, the project includes no residential or commercial component on top of the new stores, despite its location roughly one-half mile from both the Tenleytown-AU and Friendship Heights Metro stations. Like the TD Banknorth building across Wisconsin Avenue, these patches in the urban fabric will better the community, but without more of a plan, they are just patches.
�
The new Safeway will activate 42nd Street, which is separated from Wisconsin Avenue by just a small triangular park. Instead of a forbidding blank wall, Safeway plans some outdoor seating for an in-store Starbucks. Residential Ellicott Street will get a landscaped park in front of the store's substantial setback. The surface parking lot will become an enclosed one-story parking wing, and the loading dock will move to Davenport Street, adjacent to Georgetown Day School, screened from the street by a brick wall.

42nd Street view now (left) and planned (right).

Unfortunately, Safeway wanted to be expedient with the design and worked with one of the five neighborhood organizations that claims to represent the community, the Alliance for Rational Development. As their double-plus inaccurate name implies, ARD opposes most, if not all development of sites along Wisconsin and in Tenleytown. Their policies are transit-oriented-denialist, insisting that the area is optimally zoned and built up, and that any more growth will only have negative effects, primarily on the supply of parking.

42nd Street elevation.

Some of their concerns for any given project can seem legitimate when viewed without context, ignoring of the multiple benefits of well-designed areas with mixed uses. But Tenleytown's zoning only allows for densities along a very narrow band on Wisconsin Avenue, closer in form to a suburban arterial than an interconnected city neighborhood. Many other lots, just a block or two from the Metro have no opportunities for development at any scale, because they are zoned as low-density in spite of their location at a major node in the city's infrastructure network.

Because there are so few available parcels, city officials and residents on both sides end up debating the few opportunities for development even more hotly. The Tenley-Friendship Library, for example, represented an appealing opportunity to add housing to an existing project on publicly-owned land. But that small site posed other challenges, like fitting in a reasonable building without disrupting the adjacent Janney School. That proved too difficult, and city officials ultimately abandoned that effort.

Last week, the Economic Development office announced that the new library would have stronger columns in the rear third of the building, to support future construction above and behind the current building.

A small addition, mostly on top rather than beside the library, might be possible, but there's very little room to maneuver. And realistically, any building other than a modest standalone structure would seem out of place amid the other uses on that block. Eliminating one of Janney's fields is too steep a price to pay for the benefits. However, nobody would be suggesting such an expensive, controversial project if the neighborhood had zoning that was more reasonable for such a central location and neighbors that greeted development with constructive dialogue.

The local ANC issued a list of potential development sites in response to the Library fiasco, however, the sites they selected are not enough. Metro and the commercial potential along Wisconsin are both amazing resources that a neighborhood cannot squander while also looking to become sustainable and rational.

Cross-posted at цarьchitect.

51 comments — Share	— tags: anti neighbors, DC, retail, Smart Growth, Tenley library PPP, Tenleytown, Tenleytown Safeway

Pimp my Safeway: Redevelopment potential for the Capitol Hill Safeway (Jun 30, 2009)
Smart growth, dumb process: Tenley-Janney will proceed without PPP (Mar 16, 2009)
Cheh, Brown ask to shelve Tenley library PPP (Oct 29, 2008)
From Social Safeway to Sidewalk Safeway (Jun 16, 2008)
NIMBYism strong on Upper Wisconsin (Feb 22, 2008)

Comments

Neil- thanks for posting this. The new store will undoubtedly be an improvement compared to blank wall along 42nd Street and the large surface parking lot there now. As you note, however, this will also be another missed opportunity for the neighborhood and for DC. This parcel is within a 10 minute walk of the Friendship Heights metro station and a 5 minute walk from the Tenley metro station. More residential and retail development should be located in transit-accessible locations such as this. Bringing new residents to this section of Wisconsin Avenue would certainly help the many struggling neighborhood businesses, with the high vacancy rates in the Tenley-Friendship section. Instead of the numerous mattress stores, fast-food restaurants, and vacant store-fronts this development (with added residential), the Maxxim condos, and the LCOR development could have created a very lively neighborhood with a limited need to rely on private automobiles.

by Ben on Sep 25, 2009 1:28 pm

Great post thanks.

A couple of brief points.

What Safeway is proposing is significantly less than what they could build as a matter of right at this site. It is also less imaginative than what they are proposing to build in Bethesda.

And of course ARD is silent about the fact that they are building less than is permissable (which also happened with the TD Bank and the proposal for the Lord and Taylor parking lot in Friendship Heights) which is sort of contrary to what ARD (and the other indistinguishably anti-growth groups in upper NW) has been saying for the last few years which is that they are all for built out MOR projects.

One minor note about the failed PPP at the Tenleytown library - the project that fell apart at the last minute due to financing was going to in fact net out with more usable open green space than Janney will otherwise have going forward because the land ceded to the PPP was going to be less than the space regained when the Janney surface parking lot was returned to play space. And yes there was enough land there for Janney to retain a regulation soccer field. So it is repeating one of the many false anti-growth talking points to state that Janney was going to lose one of its playing fields.

But it is unlikely such a positive land exchange will be viable going forward since the libraries construction precludes building anything(parking) underneath the library.

by TomQ on Sep 25, 2009 1:47 pm

So here's an idea:

Tenleytown has wonderful access to the Red Line that other areas would love to have. However, several vocal groups of residents are not willing to allow development that would *actually be rational* for their situation on top of a major transit stop. I would propose that (and this is perhaps taking from another previous thread here on GGW) any time a train on the Red Line needs to "express through" a station to remain on time, it does so through the Tenleytown station. This would perhaps give the area the transit service it deserves...

by David T on Sep 25, 2009 2:00 pm

David T, As awesome and vindcitive as that might be, Teneleytown actually does get a steady stream of subway users. What it doesn't get enough of is bus users - the 37 is almost empty every time I take it.

by цarьchitect on Sep 25, 2009 2:04 pm

I am not sure why the new Safeway will be an improvement over the old one. The pretty rendering shows some sort of sidewalk cafe and streetlife but without a change in use, there will be no reason for those people to be on that block. Maybe they are Safeway employees out for a smoke during their break.

by Ron Eichner on Sep 25, 2009 2:28 pm

I was admiring the modern traditional look in the renderings and opened the document to see that the design is by Torti Gallas.

IMO Safeway is by the far the most open-minded national mainstream supermarket chain in the country towards building urban stores with urban design. Most of the supermarket chains wouldnt think of building in an urban area, let alone design a custom-designed urban store built up to property line with underground or structured parking. They engage the neighborhood from the start, hire decent architects and present a design that works with the neighborhood context.

by jon on Sep 25, 2009 8:50 pm

David T:
Most NIMBY opposition to development and gentrification comes from people who can't benefit from increased property values. A narrow commercial corridor which is already too dense to be supported by its own inhabitants certainly doesn't benefit nearby residents if this narrow strip scales up the retail with no other changes - and indeed, will eliminate plenty of non-chain neighborhood institutions in exchange for making parking more difficult.

That's why one has to occasionally step back and let the market sort things out. If a politician were to zone the whole area including surrounding neighborhoods flexibly (without first having a developer ready to seize and raze the whole area), and pay attention to things like maintaining street-level diversity rather than parking, the neighborhood commercial strip can evolve organically into mixed-use TOD without interference from nearby property owners who stand to benefit.

by Squalish on Sep 26, 2009 12:41 am

I'm quite surprised by the comment above regarding the 37 being empty. I ride it nearly daily and every seat is filled on a consistent basis. And, though I much prefer the convenience of the 37 to get downtown, the 32 is also similarly filled.

by Jeff M on Sep 26, 2009 8:16 am

Twenty-one years ago, I lived on Nebraska Avenue next to the Japanese Ambassador's Residence, and used to have to make the walk up to this dreary Safeway on weekends once a week, during my first Fall and Winter in Washington.

I had to laugh when I saw the photo of the back wall of the Safeway since it seems like it hasn't changed one bit. The comments made so far about it positively killing neighborhood interaction couldn't be more spot-on, something I often thought about at the time, esp. when it was windy and cold and people hadn't cleaned their sidwalks of snow and I had to walk on the side of the road -and could've really gone for a hot coffee!

But then so much of that particular stretch of Wisconsin Avenue, when the old Channel Nine building and transmitter loomed high over the area, seemed to be slightly off-kilter and thrown together, not unlike the Old Executive Office Building.

Frankly, though everyone told me Tenleytown was great before I got there after my summer on Capitol Hill -and it was certainly MUCH SAFER than other parts of DC during that murderous era- the retail mix along that part of Wisconsin wasn't really much to brag about then, either.
The Cineplex Odeon Theatres weren't there yet, and neither was the Chesapeake Bagel Bakery fronting Wisconsin, two places I wouldn't really use much until years later when I was living in Arlington and visiting friends in that part of D.C. on weekends.

(Since the Metro opened much later on Sundays back then -I want to say 11 a.m.?- I'd actually catch one of the 30-SOMETHING buses on Wisconsin over to Capitol Hill to get my yen for bagels and out-of-town Sunday newspapers satisfied, though I'd sometimes bail-out in Georgetown for breakfast if my hunger pangs were getting too loud and the interminable bus trip was taking forever. And when wasn't it?)

I only wish that blogging technology -and Greater Greater Washington in particular- had existed back then so that the give-and-take on D.C. public policy would've more accurately reflected the realities of citizens and taxpayers, and not been such a PR echo chamber for establishment types, back when Oliver Carr was always in the news, save the occasional Washington City Paper ustory that caught fire in the region because it had the advantage of being both true and common sense -and ignored by the MSM.

Keep up the great work!
-Dave in Hallandale Beach, FL

by David on Sep 27, 2009 5:46 am

As a board member of ARD, the Alliance for Rational Development, I'd like to clear up some apparent misconceptions about ARD's position on development. ARD welcomes development that enhances rather than overwhelms our neighborhood. We've publicly and strongly supported such projects as Cityline/Best Buy, Tenley Hill, the Babes project, and now the Safeway renovation.

Far from being "transit-oriented denialists," we're poster children for the TOD lifestyle. I practically live on the Metro and walk just about everywhere I go, teaching my grandchildren to do the same.

Let's look at the idea that we're "insisting that the area is optimally zoned and built up." This is an interesting comment, implying that the zoning and the build-out are the same thing. Not so, as anyone who's studied the issues knows. Most of Wisconsin around Tenleytown is zoned for 5 or so stories. But it's built out to only 2 to 3 stories. So new development could increase this density to 5 stories, with perhaps some escalation. There's plenty of room within current zoning for much greater build-out. If we did build out to 5 or 6 stories, we'd look pretty much like Connecticut at the Cleveland Park or Woodley Park Metros, maybe a little denser. This is not a bad concept.

We share everyone's concerns about sprawl and the need for affordable housing. Our concerns are the same, but perhaps our vision is different and thus so are our solutions. Growth must come thoughtfully, balancing the legitimate needs of neighborhoods with the benefits of careful development. We reject the one-size-fits-all approach that says that families and single-family homes have no place in the transit-oriented world, that high-rises are the only rightful occupiers of land near the Metro.

It comes down to a vision of our community. A number of prominent Smart Growth advocates propose that Tenleytown should eventually look like Shirlington or Ballston. That's their vision, and that's fine for them.

Our vision is very different. We believe it's possible and desirable to grow more moderately. We believe that's the way to keep families feeling welcome and to encourage small local businesses rather than chain stores. We believe in preserving and growing communities where the schools and the library are the jewels of the neighborhood, not minor entities to be squashed under an apartment building.

By all means let's talk about how best to develop Tenleytown. But let's be fair, and let's refrain from misrepresenting the positions of those who hold different views.

by Carolyn Sherman on Sep 27, 2009 2:12 pm

@Carolyn Sherman

You don't think Safeway is taking the easy way out by negotiating with the ARD (or the Coalition to Stop Tenleytown OverDevelopment, or the Tenley Neighborhood Asssociation or whatever of the multiple neighborhood groups the ARD is?) in lieu of actually proposing something that makes sense for its location with some density on the avenue because of fears of the kinds of delays the Giant in Cleveland Park or 5220 Wisconsin has endured at the outlook that you share?

I would think a less impactful development that has density on Wisconsin Avenue and green space adjacent to the residential neighbors in the rear would be a much better solution.

It would be within zoning parameters, avoid a PUD and be a more sustainable solution for the long term.

Instead, the ARD is cheering for a one-story suburban style grocery store with a black top because it is "ration". Bully for you, bad for our grandchildren.

by William on Sep 27, 2009 5:24 pm

Safeway talked to everyone who expressed an interest in meeting with them and accommodated various requests that mattered to neighbors and that didn't cost much or interfere dramatically with their own plan. Basically, they're building what they want to build on land they own. Strikes me as kind of ridiculous to claim that landowners should be forced to build up to the zoning limits regardless of whether they consider a project on that scale a good investment.

And as for our grandkids -- supermarkets generally aren't built for the ages. Retail is trendy. Thirty to fifty years from now they'd be better off with a one-story building with a single owner that can be torn down than they would be with an outdated grocery store sitting under or enveloped by an uninspiring condo building which is worth too much to be a viable teardown. You're not going to get anything grand and glorious constructed on that strip (between a HS and a car dealership) right now. So better something that meets current needs (Safeway's and the community's) and that lets a future generation make its own decisions about what constitutes the best land use for the site in 2040.

by Z on Sep 27, 2009 8:22 pm

So now we are talking about a teardown in 30-50 years rather than building something that will exemplify good construction and serve as the foundation of a neighborhood center which could become iconic for the community. I stand by my earlier comment, Safeway is going for the path of least resistance because of the proud neighborhood activists.

Oh, and perhaps the car dealership would have been redeveloped into something better if the same cast of characters hadn't torpedoed that proposal a few years back.

by William on Sep 27, 2009 9:02 pm

Yeah, but repeating an assertion doesn't substantiate it. It's still just an assertion. Any actual evidence that Safeway wanted to build more at this site? They didn't start the process asking for more. And the last two residential PUDs granted in the area have gone unbuilt -- certainly for lack of demand in one case. Housing there isn't an attractive investment right now. The only reason there was interest in the library deal was it looked like it had lots of potential for government subsidization (public land, construction contracts, affordable housing subsidies, some kind of PILOT arrangement).

And, remembering the images I saw of the apartment building that was proposed for the car dealership site, I can only say that I'd be deeply disappointed in my grandkids if they lamented the absence of such a structure. It was butt-ugly and would have made for a really monotonous pedestrian environment.

By contrast, the images the ANC got an architect to draw up for that site looked interesting. More along the lines of Bethesda Alley which was on the drawing board at the time.

But what the ANC discovered is that someone (with money and/or control of the land) has got to want to build it. And nobody did. Similar story here.

No one is offering to build an iconic neighborhood center there. Safeway just wants to update its grocery store. They're doing it in a relatively attractive way and trying to accommodate the reasonable concerns of their neighbors. I think they deserve credit than blame.

by Z on Sep 27, 2009 9:38 pm

The area around Tenleytown is one of the most affluent neighborhoods in DC and yet this area has numerous vacant storefonts, and a lack of retail, dining, and recreational activities compared with other neighborhoods of the District. Nobody is advocating that this section of Wisconsin Avenue become like the Roslyn-Ballston corridor but having the single-family Reston-style homes right next to the metro station on Albemarle Street ensures that there will be more sprawl, more traffic, and more pollution elsewhere because of the decision to build at extremely low densities on properties right next to the metro station. If I remember correctly, Arlington County was also able to preserve so many of the single-family homes and a diversity of housing options precisely because County planners encouraged development next to the metro stations.

As mentioned in my previous post, if Tenley residents allowed the Maxim condos, the LCOR development, and a supermarket comparable to the proposed Giant in Cleveland Park, this neighborhood could be one of the most desirable in the region. Instead, we have mattress stores, fast-food, shuttered stores, and unbuilt parcels. I hope the Tenley residents enjoy seeing their sales tax go to Maryland and Virginia instead.

by Ben on Sep 27, 2009 9:48 pm

Look at Safeway stores elsewhere in the US that have housing or otherwise density atop the store for samples of what they do elsewhere. As I indicated, it is clear they are heading down the path of least resistance at the expense of regional sustainability.

Hopefully our grandchildren will have access to the names of the people who are affecting these decisions so proper histories and texts of what NOT to do will be readily available. I am glad Ms. Sherman's name will be near the top of the list. Maybe someone will share the names of the other ARD Board Members. By their website it seems no one wants to claim ownership of the organization.

by William on Sep 27, 2009 10:17 pm

Maxim didn't get built because they couldn't pre-sell any units. That project did have community support (as did Cityline and Tenley Hill before it).

No one has offered to build something like the CP Giant project in Tenley and when someone does it will be in the Whole Food strip rather than at the Safeway location. That's where a town center would make sense from a functional standpoint and where substantial land assembly has already been accomplished.

Mattress stores have to be somewhere. A commercial strip which is easily accessible to two major universities is a logical location. And at least one of the mattress stores has been replaced by a restaurant as rents have increased -- maybe two. It's been awhile since I bought a mattress.

Two basic points seem to be getting lost in this discussion. First, communities don't control what gets built -- landowners, developers, investors, and markets play a much bigger role than government and DC government doesn't really listen to communities anyway. Secondly, not every parcel can or should be a town center. Sometimes a grocery store is just a grocery store. It's fine to want that grocery store to address the neighborhood in ways that improve streetscape and circulation and encourage walk-ons. And when communities advocate for such things, companies are likely to accommodate them because what's being advocated is in their interest as well. But it seem unreasonable (not to mention futile) to insist that a grocery store be (or include) an apartment building. Which is what commentary on this thread seems to be doing.

by Z on Sep 27, 2009 11:21 pm

"communities don't control what gets built" - They can if they don't keep saying no to reasonable development. The Office of Planning gave the community a chance to indicate what benefits and amenities they wanted to see from development, but the ANC refused, lest they be construed as actually supporting higher density. So they lost the ability to weigh in meaningfully on new development.

Re:"not every parcel can or should be a town center" - William is right. If you look at Safeway "lifestyle" stores, like the one in Portland or at the lower level of City Vista at 5th and L Streets, NW they are attractive and positive contributions to their communities, but Safeway indicated to several groups they met with that they had no desire to see the kind of drawn-out fights with NIMBYs that characterized the Giant in Cleveland Park, so that was why they were going to stick with a one-story development that represents one more missed opportunity to increase the livability of Wisconsin Avenue.

As to the "support" that ARD provided for Tenley Hill - they weren't even in existence until years after that project, and some members of the group said publicly later that they were reconsidering whether that had been a good idea. Re: "support" for Babes, there was staunch opposition until the project got whittled down to such a small size that the economics made no sense, and even then, the chair of ANC 3F at that time, and former head of TNA, testified in opposition at the zoning hearing, while claiming to be in support. Re: their "support" for CityLine, that project was a matter of right project, except for a small technical correction, so "support" meant nothing.

by realWashingtonian on Sep 28, 2009 12:28 am

Amenities packages aren't buildings. And communities don't control what buildings will be constructed -- investors and landowners do. Neither DC government nor "the community" can require the construction of an iconic town center at this location. Demanding one would be an instance of "saying no to reasonable development." Do you want to play Scylla to ARD's Charybdis?

The Portland and City Vista examples are easily distinguishable. Safeway didn't own the land in either case. Opting into someone else's mixed-use project gave them access to a new neighborhood. From a risk/reward standpoint, that's a very different proposition than what you're asking them to do at this site.

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 7:37 am

But the community didn't even get a chance to ask, much less Safeway actually offer, because of the tenor in the neighborhood.

There are plenty of examples around DC where the PUD proffer and process has been leveraged into a much better good for the community. This is simply a case where the ARD has staked a ground and the property owner simply isn't willing to fight or do more than the minimum.

You can package it how you wish, Z, but the truth is there for all to see. It is a shame, because it could be so much more. The community loses, but the ARD can claim victory.

by William on Sep 28, 2009 8:33 am

Again, reiterating an assertion doesn't substantiate it.

The plans for the Social Safeway in G'town look pretty similar to the plans for the Secret Safeway in T'town. Seems like Safeway, unlike Giant, has decided to focus on selling groceries. For the record, CP isn't Giant's only local development debacle -- O Street is still a mess despite massive community support. Some businesses stick to what they do well; others overreach.

I think you're playing into ARD's hands here by casting them as a much more powerful force than they are. They didn't hire Torti Gallas and they certainly weren't the only group to meet with Safeway. Why (other than the fact that ARD pdf'd and posted images from Safeway's ZC application) assume that Safeway does ARD's bidding. Why would Safeway cave to ARD's demands rather than, say, Ward 3 Vision's or the ANC's if, in fact, it wanted to build a larger mixed-use project at that site?

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 9:12 am

Safeway's business plan (straight from the horse's mouth):

Safeway attributes increased profitability to "lifestyle" remodeling:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061013/ai_n16786924/

Safeway converting DC stores to lifestyle brand/format:

http://www.socialsafeway.com/socialsafeway-aboutus.html

T'town Safeway will be rebuilt on the lifestyle model:

http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2009/08/tenleytown-gets-retail-improvements.html (see Craig Muckle quote)

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 9:40 am

I don't get it. Safeway is proposing basically a full-on renovation of their store and they get beat up on for it?

Meanwhile, Giant has spent 10-15 years trying to get a more significant change
to their cleveland park/wisconsin ave store approved, and still faces another 3-5 years of possible delays.

Now why should Safeway bother to attempt something more significant when (portions of) DC citizenry and DC's zoning approval process make anything more ambitious something that will result in many years of delay to get anything done?

We're blaming Safeway for this? How about DC and its NIMBYs?

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 9:42 am

@ah

That is my point. If the "community" was more willing to entertain a more progressive long terms solution, this wouldn't be an issue. However, since there is a loud "rational" development voice, the property owner is heading towards the path of least resistance, which is a suburban style (with lipstick) grocery store in what could be a vibrant and progressive urban setting -- Safeway apparently isn't willing to consider the air rights over their store. In the long run, that is NOT smart development.

by William on Sep 28, 2009 10:04 am

Steak and Egg should take over the Safeway lot for a massive expansion. That is all.

by Simon on Sep 28, 2009 10:06 am

William, maybe it's tomato/tomahto, but when you say "Safeway isn't willing to consider" you suggest that Safeway's the one being unreasonable, when perhaps Safeway has surveyed the regulatory/neighbor environment and has decided to take the course that will result in relatively quick renovation rather than a long struggle that antagonizes part of the community. If the latter, it's hard to pin that on Safeway in any way. (and that doesn't even take into account whether one could make the business case for more robust development, which I'm skeptical of in that area).

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 10:31 am

Ms. Sherman, we definitely want the single-family home to be a part of TOD. The issue is about what is appropriate, and how multiple kinds of housing can fit together. Metro is a precious resource, and in order to use it and its areas best, the first few blocks adjacent to it need to have a higher density than they do now for the benefit of the city and the environment. Tenleytown doesnt need to be like Chinatown, but having a little more density for one or two blocks around Wisconsin and then scaling it back slowly would best use the resource. Go to Clarendon if you havent been there recently. Three blocks from Wilson Boulevard, they have detached private homes. There are only a handful of areas in Tenleytown where the zoning permits townhouses, even.

I used the term transit-oriented-denialist because most of the arguments Ive heard from your organizations members, and even online, reflect a misapprehension of appropriate density and what its effects are. The opinion that you think the area is optimally zoned is reflected both in your comments and in the support for of-right developments, rather than welcoming a PUD. To be clear, I dont believe you ever have to build over 8 stories.

As for anyone telling any developers anything, lamenting a disappointing choice is not coercion. Zoning laws are distinctly coercive and they do tell people what to build.

by цarьchitect on Sep 28, 2009 10:32 am

Zoning laws may be restrictive but they generally tell landowners what they can't build -- not what they must build. The exceptions to this general rule (parking, loading, sewers) tend to be contingent and auxiliary ("if you want to build retail on this scale in this zone, then you must provide a loading dock of these dimensions.") Owners aren't compelled to build anything (nothing in the zoning code prevents the continued existence of that Safeway as-is) -- much less to build out to the limits of the zoning envelope.

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 11:26 am

And, Z, at least in residential zones when people build out to the zoning envelope limits it often raises a neighborhood ruckus. Think McMansions in pretty much any older residential area.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 11:30 am

While zoning laws guide what is not possible without relief, the underlying question still lingers. If we don't put density on main corridors and adjacent to metro stops, then please let the readers know a better place to encourage sustainable development, increase the tax base and provide enough people/foot traffic to support retail.

by William on Sep 28, 2009 12:10 pm

So every grocery store chain that owns land within 1/2 a mile of a subway station should be compelled to develop housing? Regardless of whether the grocer wants to be in the real estate business? Regardless of whether there's demand for such housing or whether lenders will finance it?

Sure, go with that. See how far it gets you.

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 12:20 pm

Look at Safeway stores under this new format elsewhere around the country. They are already doing it. Why do you suppose they are avoiding suggesting it in Tenleytown?

Exactly, it is because they want to take the path of least resistance due to the ARD and other proponents of "rational" development. Maybe they are not all-powerful, but they are enough of a pain in the rear that land owners don't want to deal with them. The result of this is the lost opportunity for a broader tax base and more opportunities in Tenleytown and thus the District as a whole.

by William on Sep 28, 2009 1:03 pm

Or perhaps the business justification doesn't exist. It's not as if this is the only parcel available for more extensive development. The entire corridor, particularly there a few blocks from metro, has loads of commercial space potential but it's not being developed either. Why isn't the Dancing Crab being turned into a multi-level club with condos on top? Because of ARD?

Or perhaps ARD reflects the general sentiment in the area as compared to, say, Georgetown, where the local interests pushed for a storefront that included other items.

by ah on Sep 28, 2009 1:11 pm

As the links I posted indicate, what Safeway is building in Tenleytown is quite similar to what it's building elsewhere. And, as I pointed out, the mixed-use examples previously cited (Portland and City Vista) involved Safeway's decision to opt into projects being developed by others on land it didn't own.

This isn't about neighborhood-level politics, it's about a national business strategy being pursued by a major chain. Get real. They're trying to compete with Whole Foods -- not to curry favor with (or avoid the wrath of) ARD. ARD is your bete noire -- not Safeway's. And an iconic town center at that location is your fantasy -- not Safeway's.

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 1:27 pm

William,

Safeway has met with a variety of community groups and has made clear that they have no interest in building a mixed use project--it's not what they do and they have no interest in becoming residential property developers and managers. Pick up the phone and talk to Craig Muckle or Avis Black at Safeway (301 918-6803) and let them tell you directly. Then, be sure to thank them for giving the community a state-of-the-store which will bring new services and conveniences that will benefit everyone.

On a more general note, why don't you advocate for your point of view. Get together with like-minded neighbors. Perhaps you'll find that its easier be a critic of ARD and other community groups who are actually working cooperatively to develop a vision for the neighborhood and making it happen. One may not agree with everything these entities stands for, but at least they're trying to make a positive contribution to the neighborhood based on their convictions. What are you doing besides griping?

by Tenleytown Resident on Sep 28, 2009 5:52 pm

It might be pointed out that this is what replaced a single-story Safeway in downtown Bethesda.

by Ben Ross on Sep 28, 2009 8:38 pm

When -- 20 to 30 years ago? Got any info on the deal?

Here's what Safeway is building in Bethesda now:
http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2009/07/bethesda-safeway-reinvention-running.html

by Z on Sep 28, 2009 9:29 pm

Safeway should be applauded for working with the neighbors and reaching an agreement to build a beautiful new store. I wish Safeway owned the parcel at Wisconsin and Newark. If so, we'd have a new store by now. Instead we will have to wait out the appeals or until Giant suddenly starts to negotiate with the neighborhood.

by Marisa on Sep 29, 2009 3:19 pm

Z-- here is what Safeway is building in Wheaton:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/09302009/wheanew202824_32523.shtml

14-story apartment complex and Safeway grocery store planned for Wheaton

by Ben on Sep 30, 2009 11:08 am

ARD speaks for no one in Tenleytown except for their "board members" Carolyn Sherman, Marilyn Simon, Sue Hemberger (Z), Gina Mirigliano, and maybe a dozen others. They are also TNA, FNA, CSTO, and other Tenleytown organizations that believe that every additional resident of Tenleytown is stealing from them.

by Tenley Tattler on Oct 2, 2009 3:07 am

I'm not a member (much less a board member) of ARD. I do belong to TNA. I don't belong to FNA -- never have. I was involved with CSTO in the early days. Haven't been for years. I'm fairly certain TT is wrong about others listed (and certainly omits leaders of the other organizations). Basically, the most generous interpretation is TT only knows a few people/names and assumes they're all in cahoots and running everything. In short, either Tenley Tattler doesn't know WTF he or she is talking about or TT is deliberately spreaking misinformation.

And as packed public meetings and hundreds of petition signatures suggest, when major development issues are contested along upper Wisconsin lots of people who don't participate actively in local associations, jump into the fray and express their opinions. We haven't had a CP Giant situation in which there have been lots of people signing on to a petition that goes against the position taken by local associations. Just a few very vocal individuals claiming to speak for the silent majority.

by Sue Hemberger on Oct 2, 2009 8:03 am

A quick correction. Tenley Tattler's facts on ARD's board membership are roughly as accurate as its facts on ARD's positions on development . None of the people mentioned in his/her post are on the ARD board. I, along with four others not named by Tattler, am on the ARD board. Marilyn Simon is on the board of the Friendship Neighborhood Association(FNA), and Gina Mirigliano is an FNA member and I think on the board but I'm not sure. Sue Hemberger is not a member of either group.

There are in fact a number of neighborhood groups that have similar but not lock-step positions on development issues, and they're composed of different people (Sorry, Tattler). We agree on many issues and disagree on the details of others. We claim to represent only the people who have joined with us on questions that have come up.

These "maybe a dozen others" for whom we purportedly do speak turn out to be a lot more. For example, CSTO, the predecessor to ARD, gathered 2,000 signatures of DC residents who opposed the Martens proposal in a period of about 3 months. Note that we supported development at that spot--just not the prison-look-alike they were proposing. We raised money through a yard sale to have an architectural designer draw another option--a 5-6 story building that would have opened up the space to sidewalk cafes and been a much more attractive and practical alternative. As it turned out, even the Office of Planning told Martens that what they were offering was way too massive for that site. During this controversy, Martens had someone put up a website that sought neighborhood support, and the silence was deafening.

As for the Akridge project, again, as much as people opposed to our views like to repeat (sort of like the "death panels" mantra) that we represent a crabby minority and hate any development, FNA was able to get the 500 signatures of those who lived closest to the proposed project, about 90% of the residents, to sign a petition opposing that particular project. The ANC, of which I was a part, suggested another design that would have brought mixed use to that site but would have included some set-backs and green space for pedestrians. Akridge tried to get a counter-petition up, but got few takers.

I hesitate to write this message because of the vitriol it will doubtedly unleash. But I do want to correct the post about our board membership. And I especially want to reiterate that we welcome positive discussion of development in TT and FH. We certainly have the same concerns everyone does about sprawl and our future as the population grows. How do we handle these challenges intelligently and responsibly? We don't have all the answers, but we're looking honestly and carefully.

People who say we oppose development really usually mean that we oppose their kind of development. They oppose our solutions, and we don't call them anti-development. Yet if we don't agree with their proposals, we're automatically anti-development. Go figure.

Unlike a number of the Smart Growth groups, we get no funding from anything but our yard sales. We also have full-time jobs and hectic, demanding personal lives. We're a group of neighbors who believe intelligent growth means preserving family-friendly neighborhoods. Great cities aren't just downtown. Great cities cherish their great neighborhoods. Change at the expense of stable neighborhoods risks the stability of the entire city. Change is good and inevitable, so let's talk about what we do want and how we can get it.

We're neighbors, so let's act like neighbors who happen to have differing views. Sometimes when I read these posts I feel like Glen Beck has moved to TT.

Stayed tuned for the ARD website, which we're working as we have time and which will give a fuller representation of ARD positions, our board, etc.

This is my last post for a while, so I won't be answering any comments be they kind, snide, rational, or crazed. Life intrudes. I hope everyone has a good weekend!

by Carolyn Sherman on Oct 2, 2009 8:57 am

With all due respect, it seems like there are all of these neighborhood groups, but none of them are transparent about who they are, who comprises their leadership and the like.

I would assume it is easy to misconstrue facts, but when neighborhood groups are put out in the press to stake a position, popular or not, and there is no accountability in terms of who the groups purport to represent, then you can see where these allegations arise.

It has been a week since the discussion on the Tenley Yahoo Group, and to date, no one has posted information about how one joins the TNA. How hard can it be?

The ARD website has been up for a few years, and yet there is no mention of leadership or how one joins.

I challenge Ms. Sherman to post such information here and on the Tenley Yahoo Group.

by William on Oct 2, 2009 9:14 am

I've pointed out repeatedly on the listserv that you can join TNA by attending a TNA meeting and asking to join and that TNA typically meets the third TH of every month at St. Columba's. Meetings are typically advertised in the NW Current (they failed to print the last notice in time and apologized to the person who submitted it).

There's no lack of transparency -- there's just not a web presence. In fact, the people complaining about TNA being a secretive and exclusive organization (on the neighborhood yahoogroups listserv) had just attended a TNA meeting. They didn't stick around to meet people or ask to join. Instead, they posted afterwards demanding information on a listserv in which none of the TNA leadership participates.

by Sue Hemberger on Oct 2, 2009 10:39 am

I don't really have a dog in this fight at all -

But I don't see how that situation equals a transparent organization. It seems to me the barriers to obtaining information and membership are awfully high - a lot higher than they need to be with the easy and free access to the internet and other web-based services.

by Alex B. on Oct 2, 2009 10:49 am

Civic associations exist for people who want to spend some of their time following and understanding local politics and other neighborhood issues. I don't think once a month evening meetings (with non-mandatory attendance) is too burdensome. I appreciate having a context in which to participate in (or just listen to) well-informed discussions with people who have had different experiences over time in dealing with DC government, development, etc.

By contrast, point and click activism encourages people to react immediately to the first thing they read on an issue with no back-and-forth or fact-checking as long as they recognize the source. I'd much rather live in a deliberative democracy than be governed by electronic plebiscites.

To the extent that politicians take civic associations seriously, it's not because of their numbers but because of their expertise and sustained engagement. These are people who pay attention and will make a fuss and who vote. And if what the civic associations are saying is out-of-touch with what lots of other residents think, then write-in campaigns, petition drives, etc. are other ways of enabling people who don't want to invest much time (or don't want to continually invest time) in local politics to make their voices heard. It's not as if civic organizations have a monopoly on political speech (even collective speech).

by Sue Hemberger on Oct 2, 2009 12:06 pm

@Sue Hemberger

I cannot disagree with you more. These associations are often speaking on behalf of a community. How can they do so without really knowing how the community feels? The only way to do that is to have an inclusive membership process, a transparent system to gauge community sentiment and authority to speak on behalf of its constituents.

The fact that none of the cited organizations have a mechanism to reach new members in this era of easy communications is silly. If a new resident is not aware of a community organization, then how can they know to attend a monthly Thursday meeting? Oh, by happening on the square inch of notice in the NW Current?

Please. I am sure you believe that this is all on the level, but I would be willing to bet that the majority of people reading this will agree with me that it is clear these groups haven't the slightest interest in adding new members and truly gauging community sentiment on these issues.

by William on Oct 2, 2009 12:18 pm

Correction, William. They have an interest in gaining signatures on petitions on red meat items when it suits them. Where is the deliberation in getting people to sign something so they can get back to cooking dinner? Other than that these groups are a few people. They are advocacy groups posing as citizens groups.

by observer on Oct 2, 2009 12:35 pm

Ms. Hemberger,

Suggesting that the internet reduces information, reduces dialogue, and reduces involvement seems strange, given the tenor of much of the discussion I have seen, and in particular, my interactions with people at the ANC meetings. I agree that face-to-face dialogues are better in terms of speedy deliberation, but they have limitations, especially when members operate in a cliquish manner and do not release information to the general public. Can I join an organization with a platform if I disagree with the planks?

There is a level of transparency possible with free communication that simply isnt possible for a closed organization. The TNA does not publish minutes of its meetings so only those present can know what happened. Or, for example, I know ARDs positions, but I dont really have a good grasp on how they reached those opinions, because they publish no debate, let alone the fact that there was a debate.

Speaking only for myself, I put my blog up because it allows people to read my opinion at any time and debate it, or at least inform newer discussion. You only have to look at some of the longer debates between blogs, such as this one, where the argument can be traced clearly.

Perhaps the internet allows loons and curmudgeons to respond quickly, but I dont think this discussion is that way here. Besides, many of the key contributors and commenters on this blog are very active in their respective communities and come here to discuss issues that relate to the whole region because they recognize its potential to communicate.

If you want to prove your commitment to openness, have meetings and get a web presence. You cant complain about an arena of debate not representing you correctly without making a serious effort to represent your organization or your view in that arena.

by цarьchitect on Oct 2, 2009 1:39 pm

Ms. Sherman

You certainly sound more reasonable than the apparent ARD representatives I have met, so I can see progress toward a coherent discussion in the future. Too many fights in upper Northwest have resulted from intransigent opponents raging against about every other group. Tenleytowns reputation as a vicious battleground ruled by a tight-knit group is not undeserved.

Some of the ARDs proposals have been fine examples of appropriate development, but the general process in which those proposals appear makes them suspect. Only when a big project appears (usually trying to enter a PUD, a very open and democratic process) have the area activists come together to propose projects. Therefore, they come across as ploys to make opposition seem less absolute. If the ARD or the TNA or the OMFGBBQ can develop a plan, a general idea with relevant specifics, then it will seem like a productive activist group. Without demonstrating in advance that you welcome growth and instead only react to the initiative of others, you will be opposition, not leaders in reshaping our community.

And I am totally open to dialogue. If youd like to meet with me, you can simply email me at neil [at] nsflanagan [dot] net or post on my blog with a real email address. Meanwhile, I will just advocate for my view, and the neighborhood is much better for the debate.

by цarьchitect on Oct 2, 2009 2:34 pm

OMFGBBQ?

How can I join this organization? Sounds delicious.

by Alex B. on Oct 2, 2009 2:59 pm