I love how "most modern" = "acres of free parking." A perfect reflection of the time this ad was created, when the streetcar was dead or dying and the automobile was king. And now, the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way. (And do note, BTW, the Capital BikeShare station right outside that very Giant!)

by Ed on May 17, 2011 10:42 am  

What a great find!

by John M on May 17, 2011 10:46 am  

I've shopped there in the past. It really is a very nice store. Well laid out and with a parking lot right next to it ... which can be a welcome rarity in the District. I will say, I was surprised the see the headline that people in Cleveland Park are SO EAGER to see it replaced. From everything I've read, the replacement is controversial. The store itself is somewhat historic as you're illustrating here with the pamphlet ... It would make a great example of a post-war supermarket. Maybe it can be landmarked? ... and all the controversy avoided ...

by Lance on May 17, 2011 10:54 am  

Nothing wrong with the store -- but there is a lot wrong with Giant's lack of upkeep.

by charlie on May 17, 2011 10:55 am  

I say we lump all the controversy together. Build the new Giant on Klingle Road, and hire Sulaimon Brown as the contractor, and Michelle Rhee as the manager when it opens!

by andrew on May 17, 2011 10:59 am  

Because declaring something a historic landmark has never created controversy.

by monkeyrotica on May 17, 2011 10:59 am  

What's amazing to me about this ad is that there were 4 Giants EotR and 0 Giants on Capitol Hill at the time.

by Trulee Pist on May 17, 2011 11:10 am  

In the mid 1950s, A&P was the dominant grocery chain. They were bought out in 1960s, when most switched over to Safeway.

by monkeyrotica on May 17, 2011 11:34 am  

Like Charlie said, there's more of an issue with Giant's maintaining the store than the building itself. Before the new Safeway opened, this was the usual go-to spot when I was visiting the 'hood. It's seems awfully cramped these days so I wonder how much has changed since it was first open. Also, just a small correction to the article... 4 out of the 24 stores were/are located in MD (Bethesda, Silver Spring, Takoma Park and Bladensburg)

by Ash on May 17, 2011 11:35 am  

@Ash: Actually, there were five stores in Maryland. You forgot the Friendship Heights one, barely on the Maryland side of Western Avenue.

by Tim on May 17, 2011 12:01 pm  

And having heard from people with some knowledge of the issue, there's absolutely nothing controversial about this store building being raised and a more modern one built in its place. That which IS controversial is Giant trying to get zoning changes (the establishment of a PUD) on this lot so that it can use it for more than selling groceries. Now why Giant didn't just go ahead and build the new store ... and deal with trying to get the zoning changes later that would allow it to go into the development business, is anyone's guess. Maybe they're not that interested in the store itself? In any case, if anyone is to be blamed for there not being a new Giant Store there, it's Giant. Nothing in the current zoning prevents it from building that new store it says it wants to build. (Just like nothing prevents it from properly maintaining the current store.)

by Lance on May 17, 2011 12:09 pm  

@Lance - Welcome to 1999. The controversy is in its dying days and Giant is preparing to move forward with a new modern marvel with fewer acres of free parking. And Sunday hours.

by ah on May 17, 2011 12:13 pm  

Lance@12:09
It is rarely economically viable to replace a old single story retail structure with a new structure of the same size. This is problem facing suburbia as well, especially tired old post-war strip corridors. Residents want new stores and "better" retail. To make this happen, there has to be enough financial incentive for a developer to finance it, and be able to draw enough rent. Residents freak out about zoning and mixed use. Without a change in the underlying low-density zoning, the buildings just deteriorate and aren't invested in. They're not worth fixing up, yet they aren't worth tearing down, so they just get rented out to low-rent tenants to keep them going.

by spookiness on May 17, 2011 12:31 pm  

Just as important an issue is how and why Giant continues to let the G.C. Murphy building sit in a state of dormancy. The two buildings sit on that block like faded beauties, hoping that someone will take notice. Meanwhile, most are just too kind to ask them to leave already. There was talk as recent as last September about developer Steet-Works planning to "celebrate the impending demolition of the abandoned 1950's era G.C. Murphy Co. store and existing Giant, which will yield to a newly renamed 'Cathedral Commons.'"

by Ash on May 17, 2011 12:39 pm  

@Ash - I think it is obvious how and why Giant has let GC Murphy sit like that -- it has been aggressively pursuing this project for several years, but the process has been slowed through the zoning approvals and community concerns. There's no reason to rehab that building when the plan is to demolish it as part of the project. What tenant would want to spend a lot of money building out an interior that they will lose anyway within a few years?

by ah on May 17, 2011 1:10 pm  

A good observation made to me in an email about the matter:

"One of the reasons that CP continues to restrict that commercial area to low density is that it is more than a mile from any metro station and already has gridlock traffic patterns. There are very few ways to mitigate the parking and traffic issues associated with a destination type development. The reason that the Comp Plan creates a hierarchy of commercial development densities is that some areas can and should accommodate more density while it is still appropriate to have lower densities at some other sites. We don't plan the city to have uniform uses and densities, yet some seem to think that good planning endorses the highest density at all sites. That seems to me to be an absence of planning."

(Printed with permission.)

by Lance on May 17, 2011 1:19 pm  

1. Ash is essentially correct. More than building size or age, what folks have most wanted is a clean, well-maintained grocery store that doesn't have empty shelves and rotten produce. Giant let the store go downhill for years. A good comparison is the SuperFresh in AU Park, which is smaller than the present Giant, but pretty clean, well-stocked, easy to get in and out of, and has a loyal following (and even an olive bar). Unfortunately, that store is now closing because SuperFresh's parent in bankruptcy, but few have lamented its size or age.

2. As the Post article pointed out, Giant agreed with the city and the neighborhood to build a new store back in 2002, but then did nothing. In 2006 it can back with various iterations of its PUD, each one getting more expansive, and then said "it's now a take it or leave it deal -- everything or no grocery."

3. Despite getting PUD approval 2 years ago, the Post article pointed out that Giant still doesn't have a financing commitment or a development partner. (Giant told the ANC the same thing last night). All of the tenants will be gone by June 2011 -- if Giant doesn't do a deal soon, the site may sit empty for a long time. Think GC Murphy times five.

4. As for the fewer acres of free parking, Giant's acres are full almost every night, but the Giant is pretty empty. Most of those cars are there for 2 Amys, Cactus Cantina, Cafe Deluxe, etc. It's certainly not Giant's obligation to park those cars for free, but when the site closes for 2-3 years during construction (and later reopens as Cathedral Commons, but with fewer commercial parking spots than today's "acres"), where will all those customers park? The McLean Gardens streets are full at night. This will be a very real challenge for those restaurants -- unless, or course, all the customers start arriving by bus or on bike!

by Sarah on May 17, 2011 1:20 pm  

unless, or course, all the customers start arriving by bus or on bike!

You forgot skate boards ... and hula hoops ... In the utopia some of the so-called smarter growth folks believe in, it really will be possible to get to all those businesses by these means ... Or maybe just by clicking their heals together ... ;)

by Lance on May 17, 2011 1:33 pm  

The property was nominated for landmark status after the residents threatened lawsuits over the initial proposal. Ironically, that proposal called for two-story building across both parcels. The PUD was required because Giant wanted to build a three story parking garage (1 and 1/2 of which would have been underground). When some residents balked at this, Giant came back with a matter of right proposal which featured a blank wall on Wisconsin Avenue.

That proposal had no support from any quaters for obvious reasons. It was at this point that a landmark nomination was floated with HPO, featuring the unique and early example of access to a retail space from both the street and parking lot (the front of the store is on Newark Street, straddling Wisconsin Avenue and the parking area.

by Andrew on May 17, 2011 1:33 pm  

"easy to get in and out of" is a curious phrase, does that mean a well laid out floor plan or efficient check out system, or is it code for free parking?

As someone who walks to the store, a parking lot is an obstacle, I appreciate that DC has so few of them in commercial areas.

by Steve S. on May 17, 2011 1:42 pm  

This is a great project that will help make this section of Wisconsin Avenue active and lively. This Giant is well-served by 30s, 90s, and the H4 bus. It is also a mile away from two metro stations. This is exactly where new residential developments should be located. Replacing the surface parking lot with new residential development and new retail will also make this neighborhood more walkable. The people who've opposed this for over a decade should be ashamed of themselves.

by Ben on May 17, 2011 1:46 pm  

@spookiness It is rarely economically viable to replace a old single story retail structure with a new structure of the same size.

It's my understanding that this was NOT the issue here. It was simply that Giant wanted to also use some of the land the store was built on to put in residences. I don't think there would have been an issue if it was just a matter of making the store larger ... or even if it meant adding more retail space in addition to the grocery store. As someone described it to me, "they were trying to squeeze a size 10 development into a size six lot size".

by Lance on May 17, 2011 1:47 pm  

I keep hearing that the issue isn't the Giant, rather it's the residential and retail complex that people object to. Keep in mind that the main group opposing the Giant, the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, is still on record against the project. They claim to be in favor of a new, improved Giant, but their actions and position are what count.

by Mark on May 17, 2011 2:01 pm  

@Lance:

"As someone described it to me, "they were trying to squeeze a size 10 development into a size six lot size."

This is curious since the buildings directly across Wisconsin Avenue are 8-10 stories tall. The taller of the two buildings with this development will only be five stories tall. I'd say try again and find a new excuse for opposing this.

by Ben on May 17, 2011 2:02 pm  

Yeah, "easy to get in and out of" is C100 secret code....

What I meant is, the store is not overwhelming. I can get in, find what I want quickly and leave, without feeling like I've had to explore a Wal-Mart with faux wood floors. Some may love big-box grocery stores, and that's great, but others don't.

And the best groceries in the District context are those that offer both easy street access for pedestrians and convenient parking. Because, while we may all wish to pretend otherwise, weekly grocery shopping, particularly for a family, is usually done with a car. One can be fairly certain that Giant is not building a 60,000 s.f. "supercenter" (its own term) based primarily on the business model that bike riders will be stuffing a wine bottle, bread and cheese (oh, and olives) into their pannier bags.

by Sarah on May 17, 2011 2:03 pm  

Lance, please ask whoever is providing you with your information to describe the original 1999 proposal to you.

Indeed, that was essentially a rebuild of what is there today but with a better relationship to Wisconsin Avene and with a multi-level parking garage. Some residents opposed it and threatened to fight the PUD, so Giant took a different position.

by Andrew on May 17, 2011 2:12 pm  

Lance, please ask whoever is providing you with your information to describe the original 1999 proposal to you.

Indeed, that was essentially a rebuild of what is there today but with a better relationship to Wisconsin Avenue and with a multi-level parking garage. Some residents opposed it and threatened to fight the PUD, so Giant took a different position.

by Andrew on May 17, 2011 2:12 pm  

Ben wrote, "This is a great project that will help make this section of Wisconsin Avenue active and lively. This Giant is well-served by 30s, 90s, and the H4 bus. It is also a mile away from two metro stations. This is exactly where new residential developments should be located."

Ben, didn't you just assert the opposite the other day on the Tenley list serv? You argued that a Wisconsin street car is required because the 30s buses are "not a good mass transit alternative," the "most delayed" and have a "continual problem" of bunching. I realize that situational spin is pretty common in Washington, but really?!?

"The 30s buses are manageable but they are not a 'good mass transit alternative.' DDOT's 2005 Transit Alternatives Analysis report found the 30s buses were the third most delayed of all the routes examined. Bunching of the
30s buses is a continual problem. Buses also generate a signficant amount of local congestion by leaving and entering the flow of vehicles to pick up passengers."

by Andrea on May 17, 2011 2:22 pm  

@monkeyrotica--"In the mid 1950s, A&P was the dominant grocery chain. They were bought out in 1960s, when most switched over to Safeway."

The area Safeways were for the most part Sanitary Grocery stores. Safeway purchased Sanitary Grocery in the 40s I believe, and the name change to Safeway happened a few years after that. Most area Safeways from the 60s on had that large "barrel vault." Area A&Ps like the one on Columbia Pike in Arlington became Super Fresh in the 80s.

A&P was never bought out by Safeway.

by John on May 17, 2011 2:26 pm  

All my life I have been living in utopia! Who knew? Taking transit, riding my bike or walking to the grocery store seemed so real...

BTW, the new building breaks ground soon (the Giant on Wisconsin Avenue is being razed, not raised). Yet another loss for the vaunted Committee of 100? Maybe the city can really rub it in and put in curb bulbouts and bike lanes along the stretch of Wisconsin Avenue. Think of the car lanes and parking that would be lost! (On top of the loss of all the beautiful and precious surface parking.)

by rg on May 17, 2011 2:27 pm  

On the map take a note of the Wisconsin Circle and Virginia Square Giants which still serve those neighborhoods today, albeit in altered form.

by John on May 17, 2011 2:29 pm  

@John: The Virginia Square Giant has moved. It used to be part of the Virginia Square Shopping Center, which was demolished in the late 80s and replaced by FDIC.

by Tim on May 17, 2011 2:38 pm  

@ Tim

I know it moved (a few hundred feet but on the same site). That's why I said in altered form..... but I suppose I could've been more specific. I do remember the old Giant well, and the parking lot full of potholes.

by John on May 17, 2011 2:42 pm  

@John-
The 1st and St Asaph street Giant is still in the same location too. (The Mt Vernon Avenue one is not there, but there is a Giant, probably built in the 60's near the Monroe Avenue bridge)

by Kolohe on May 17, 2011 2:50 pm  

It was simply that Giant wanted to also use some of the land the store was built on to put in residences.

Exactly. And the thing is that in that neighborhood, there are way too many vacant residences, and there is not any real demand to live there, and putting in new residences would just accelerate the slumification of the area.

by JustMe on May 17, 2011 3:03 pm  

FWIW, A&P wasn't the dominant local supermarket in the city, Safeway was, ever since it bought the Sanitary Market chain in the late 1920s. They had lots of small stores in most commercial districts. E.g., there were stores at either end of Brookland on 12th St. NE, stores all over Capitol Hill, stores at either end of H Street NE, etc. These stores were closed in favor of "regional" stores that people had to drive to, such as the Kentucky Ave. SE or Hechinger Mall or Rhode Island NE stores, each of which replaced at least 6 smaller stores.

Giant didn't have nearly as many stores as Safeway, but might have started the process of store consolidation earlier, in favor of bigger stores.

by Richard Layman on May 17, 2011 3:22 pm  

@Ben

Here's a reaction to your posting:

"Many of the buildings on the other side of Wisconsin near this project are two stories tall, some a little taller. But the one he seems to refer to is probably 3323-3333 Wisconsin, and is on the only property in the area zoned R-5-D, while the Giant property is zoned C-1 (MW overlay) and R-5-A.

This is a common ploy, looking at only the largest buildings in the area, and ignoring most of the buildings, and the general scale, as well as the specific Comprehensive Plan designations, when trying to claim that a project fits in well with the area. In zoning hearings, we frequently see the developer show slides of various PUDs for context -- even those whose order specifically state what is the case for all -- that the particular PUD isn't a precedent for other development in the area, then they ignore the two-story single family homes that are right next door.

Ben also seems to like to only give the height in the number of floors, in this case 5 stories, but the building would be 61 feet tall, which is significantly more than allowed in the C-1 and R-5-A zones."

(reprinted with permission)

by Lance on May 17, 2011 5:34 pm  

@Lance:

The buildings directly across Wisconsin Avenue are all 8-10 stories between Newark and Macomb. To the northwest of the north parcel, behind the liquor store, that building is also 8-10 stories. I think if you can the actual number of units, not a few detached single-family homes, it is already a fairly dense area and the north and south parcel of this project is entirely consistent with it.

by Ben on May 17, 2011 6:08 pm  

@Lance

Why not ask whomever you are parroting to simply post here themselves? They are making you look foolish by providing you with partial information from one perspective.

by William on May 17, 2011 7:13 pm  

Interesting that the store wasn't open on Sundays at first. Did DC have blue laws at the time, and did they apply to grocery stores?

by aces on May 17, 2011 7:58 pm  

Further to Lance's point that certain taller buildings near the Cathedral Commons PUD are a poor reference point:

1. One of the buildings, 3333 Wisconsin, is a former nursing home, and in terms of its height, massing and dsign is one of the ugliest buildings in the area. The fact that the Cleveland Park Hisotric District spans to Wisconsin Avenue (but excludes 3333) was in part a reaction to its construction. 3333, now an apartment building, is also a cautionary example of what happens when a development has too little on-site parking. Since it opened last year, it has become noticeably more difficult to find on-street parking in the 2-3 surrounding blocks.

2. Vaughan Place was a compromise, resulting from a developer in the 1970s wanting to raze a large part of McLean Gardens. In order to keep much of McLean Gardens low scale, the developer was allowed to build one taller structure and build the rest low rise along Wisconsin Avenue. So using the highest point in what was otherwise a low scale development does not provide a useful context for the surrounding neighborhood.

3. The Cathedral Commons north block building does not relate at all to the 2-3 story houses that face it across Wisconsin, from north of Newark past Ordway and Idaho. There is no stepping back of its floors, and is so bulky that, once constructed, it will also block the view of Washington Cathedral from the north. In terms of its height and mass, Cathedral Commons perhaps best resembles 4000 Wisconsin, not the finest example of in-fill development along Wisconsin.

by Sarah on May 17, 2011 8:47 pm  

Sarah. in 1890, the whole area was scrappy farmland and quite a bit of forest. Was it wrong for developers to build out the area in the first place? If you live in the area, do you feel wrong thriving off the destruction of context that once existed? If no, why not?

by цarьchitect on May 17, 2011 9:02 pm  

Why didn't the folks who created the Cleveland Park Historic District make 3333 Wisconsin a non-contributing structure to the historic district? In retrospect, it would have facilitated a review element to the conversion from a nursing home to the current usage.

While Vaughn Place may have been a compromise, the fact is, as Ben noted, there are other taller structures in the vicinity. This new development relates to these existing structures, and does not come close to their height or impact.

I won't argue on the merits of the architecture, but would submit that if residents had worked with the developer to make this the best project possible, rather than forcing delays and extra expense to the property owner, perhaps some of the aesthetic issues could have been properly addressed.

by William on May 17, 2011 9:46 pm  

@ öarüchitect, Sarah. in 1890, the whole area was scrappy farmland and quite a bit of forest. Was it wrong for developers to build out the area in the first place? If you live in the area, do you feel wrong thriving off the destruction of context that once existed? If no, why not?

I thought you knew something about zoning and historic districts. Are you just playing stupid with your question. Come on, you gotta know that the virgin forest had no zoning. But that that the area now does. And that zoning (along with historic) designation is meant to ensure stability to an area. I.e., Because all the major rules are laid out as to what can and cannot be built, remodeled, etc. in a certain zone and/or historic district, when people buy into that area they know what they are getting. And the value of property in that area is priced accordingly. For example, if you buy a piece of land in Manhattan where you can build 50 stories high, it is going to be correspondingly more expensive than that same size piece of land here (or even in other parts of Manhattan) where you can only go a few stories. Giant's piece of land is worth a certain value based on what is permitted to be built there in terms of height and other factors. Giant wants to get exempted from that so that they can build more than what is allowed. (That's essentially what a PUD does ... and, at least in theory, the developer is supposed to give something back to the community.) Now if Giant gets to get exempted from the zoning rules (and I think I read here where they already have been), then they are taking away that stability ... at least to a degree. Taking it away isn't free. Someone who was depending on it, for example the adjoining neighbors who'll now lose their peace order and quiet from extra traffic, etc., will be the ones footing the bill. And THAT is totally different from developing a virgin forest into a planned community following the government planning guidelines in place.

But come on, you're an architect and you don't already know that? Please tell me you were just trying to give Sarah a hard time.

by Lance on May 17, 2011 11:00 pm  

@Lance: I bet the first few people to build homes there got pretty used to the virgin forest. Should they have passed zoning-like laws to prohibit people from cutting down the forest?

Or, to make this more poignant, should they have prohibited the trees from growing above 50 feet?

by Tim on May 17, 2011 11:15 pm  

@Tim, I bet the first few people to build homes there got pretty used to the virgin forest.

If they bothered to red the plans for the area before they bought, they'd have known they wouldn't be alone for long. I.e., YES, there already was a sort of zoning in place when the first few moved in .. that 'zoning' were the developers plans for the area ...

by Lance on May 17, 2011 11:44 pm  

I have deleted a comment from Tyro that used an ad hominem attack. If you'd like to repost your comment without referring to another commenter as 'insane', you may do so.

Please make your arguments based on the merits of someone's case, not perceptions about them based merely on the fact that you disagree.

by Matt Johnson on May 18, 2011 6:46 am  

The Giant site can and ought to be able to handle 7-9 stories, provided there are some architectural guidelines that would soften the impact urbanistically. The whole area is going to densify and it ought to be done with a smart and equitable plan that looks at the whole area instead of each ANC's parochial interests. Wisconsin avenue will have a trolley someday (soon?) and the redevelopment of non-historic structures along this commuter route is inevitable. To go on about someone's contract with the zoning they bought into is true to a point, but that's where an overall vision/image of a city with double the existing population would be invaluble, give people some heads-up. The only reason this battle over the Giant has raged to this point is the political pull of the wealthy neighbors, which is fair to a point, but like the Klingle Road controversy, they might want to chose their battles more carefully.

by Thayer-D on May 18, 2011 8:04 am  

Lance, first of all, areas are typically re-zoned to conform to what is already existing in the neighborhood, so claiming that the zoning is inviolable is disingenuous.

Second of all, I'm offended that you supported getting rid of the virgin forest for low-rises which ultimately was at odds with the rural character of DC and L'Enfant's original plan? Why do you hate L'Enfant?

by Tyro on May 18, 2011 8:56 am  

Thanks for posting the interesting newspaper ad, but do you know when it was published (and thus when the Giant opened)? Even the year would be helpful.

Here in Alexandria we have a Giant that's anything but (Monroe Avenue), as it's probably half the size of the average store. Patronage is varied and as such doesn't qualify this Giant as "third world." We did have a Safeway on W. Glebe Rd. in Arlandria (with that "barrel vault" roof) patronized primarily by Latino and Asian people, where display signs were bilingual (e.g. "Comida de gatos"). So, "Third World Safeway" it became ;-) But Safeway gave up, and now it's an all-Asian market.

by John Fuller on May 18, 2011 10:52 am  

John Fuller,
I refer to the Giant on Monroe as the "Petite Giant".
I think "third world" usually refers more to the condition of the store than its patronage.
The former Safeway is not all-Asian unless you consider Duron Paint Asian, and Latin America as part of Asia.

by spookiness on May 18, 2011 11:31 am  

I have lived in the neighborhood over 30 years. There was a time in the 1950's and 1960's when this Giant store was a good fit with the neighborhood. But by the end of the 70's and the early 1980's the store was long overdue for a facelift. The store’s size limits what items it can carry. The general appearance of the store, including lighting and displays, is timeworn. And times have changed as well. Housewives who shopped during the day started to work and needed to shop on their way home. What was once a nursing home across the street (and used a commercial food distributor for their purchases) is now apartments, with working people who also need to shop once or twice a week. The selection and environment at the Wisconsin Avenue Giant as it currently exists seems a sad offering for the task.

The neighborhood has stores like a charming old-fashioned toy store, a Starbucks, a decorating store, and a neighborhood bank, are all of which are perched in one or two-story structures when that stretch of Wisconsin Avenue can not only handle higher buildings and more density, but actually needs to have more and better services.

And people have to live somewhere, too. It is disingenuous for some members of the neighborhood to believe that they are living in a sacrosanct patch of rural Washington, D.C. which can't support additional neighbors when they made their home purchases knowing they were wedged up against a major artery like Wisconsin Avenue. Everyone can't live at Van Ness, Columbia Heights, or U Street.

There are residents in Cleveland Park who feel that this is an ageless "Leave-It-To-Beaver-land" which is supposed to be undisturbed by the pulsating aggravations of city life and must never change. I also appreciate the fairy tale, but recognize that if you are living wedged up against the real world, you sometimes have to tweak the fairy tale a bit so that most people can try to live happily ever after.

Wisconsin Avenue is a main artery between Chevy Chase and Georgetown; there is little question about whether it will densify. The most important issue is how will the growth be handled. And a larger, newer, cleaner, more varied Giant that will serve the neighborhood (and maybe even some commuters on the way home, too) is long overdue.

I hope Giant will be a good neighbor and address most of the traffic and parking concerns in their plans. It would be nice if some of the existing local services (the laundry-mat, drycleaners, toy store, etc.) can return, but even if they can’t I’ll look for other services to come to the neighborhood and fill the vacuum. There will be growing pains for sure. And some of them are bound to be aggravating. But hopefully, in the end, it can still be a neighborhood.

by WashingtonWriter on May 18, 2011 12:50 pm  

@JustMe Exactly. And the thing is that in that neighborhood, there are way too many vacant residences, and there is not any real demand to live there, and putting in new residences would just accelerate the slumification of the area.

Aha! No one wants to live there - that must be why buying a condo in Mclean Gardens is so cheap compared to the rest of the city. Thank goodness the Nimbys have saved that precious stretch of empty storefronts from "slumification."

by jrobie on May 18, 2011 1:13 pm  

I lived in an apartment across from the Cathedral for a number of years. This Giant and the empty storefronts are a real eyesore. What a dump! It really is a shame that the community association members are stuck in some leave-it-to-beaver fantasy when there is so much pent-up demand for housing and quality stores and better transit options. They need to stop trying to postpone the inevitable necessity to meet the demand for more housing and better shopping. And where is the streetcar already? It's unbelievable to me that people were so silly to take the trolleys out. It became glaringly obvious to me the day I moved there that driving is the worst possible option if you are living there.

This is the neighborhood that converted me from a driver to a cyclist. Trying to drive is totally pointless when there is no place to park and I constantly got tickets. So I started biking everywhere, which is what I still do. I don't know what they were thinking taking the trolley out. That trolley would have been a god-send in this neighborhood. I wish they had that bike-share station when I was living there.

by Lee on May 19, 2011 8:55 am  

Quoting Lee, "And where is the streetcar already? It's unbelievable to me that people were so silly to take the trolleys out."

D.C. Transit Co. had operated the streetcar system, but the city council was absolutely determined to get rid of streetcars and did so, gradually removing lines from the 1950s until final shutdown on January 28, 1962. On that day, buses took over.

This happened to streetcar systems all over the country. Apparently major bus manufacturers like General Motors successfully persuaded governments to convert by claiming a greater efficiency and lower operational cost for buses.

by John Fuller on May 19, 2011 11:53 am  

Everything in the universe is temporary....where all just passing through.

by Steve on Jun 1, 2011 7:56 pm