Comments on Old zoning forces unneeded parking on Dupont building - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Mike S.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:51:16 EDT

That's right, David. 39% of the spaces in the underground parking lot will go to the church and won't produce any revenue. Nor will the dedicated elevator for the handicapped that will go from the parking lot into the church. But all of those non-revenue producing spaces and the elevator go into the cost of construction and upkeep.

Perhaps that's why they're not figuring to make any profit on the lot.

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:24:13 EDT

It's 57 spots for the apartments, plus the church wanted to maintain the 36 spaces that they have in the lot now, so there will be 36 church spaces in the garage.

Comment by charlie

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:49:03 EDT

"I don't particularly care for the demagoguery"

Yeah, that's rich.

I'm still confused on the number of spaces. GGW's original article said they would build 93 spots, and now they are saying 57.

What I also don't see is an explanation of why this building would be so bad with either 93 or 57 spots. There is a veiled reference to traffic, but I can't imagine that in either case the influx of new cars will break Dupont.

Comment by David C

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:24:09 EDT

I don't think this building will be better because it has more parking than the new zoning regs require or because it covers a smaller footprint than the market will bear. This is a perfect example of bad policy creating bad design. Developers may not be our friends (I don't particularly care for the demagoguery) but they aren't our enemies either. Especially when it's a community church that's involved. They're businesses and business people. I think Republicans call them job creators.

Comment by Bob

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:46:58 EDT

Again, developers seeking to build less off-street parking than the law requires (or none at all) should covenant that the building will not be eligible for residential parking permit stickers (RPP). This is what Arlington County does in transit oriented zones and some PUDs have agreed to in DC. If the developer won't agree, it pretty quickly exposes the 'parking minimums are too high' argument as bogus, rather than the transparent ploy that it is to push externalities (ie, parking) onto already overcrowed public streets.

BTW, raising RPP annual fees -- particularly progressively higher fees for second and third vehicles -- should be a no-brainer.

Comment by MrTinDC

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:00:29 EDT

Instead of writing a long, detailed rebuttal to Lance's comments, I'm going to save time and space here and just say I think, support and believe exactly the opposite of just about everything he says.

Comment by Joey

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:27:48 EDT

(Clarification: I wasn't meaning to assert that we "require" that the price be lowered. More that, were the developers to follow your suggestion to lower the price below $45 to 50k, I'm asking if that isn't subsidizing private parking.)

Comment by Joey

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:24:26 EDT

@charlie,

I don't know the economics of these particular deals, but my understanding is that below-grade parking costs about $45 to 50k in DC to build.

If we require, via regulation, that such parking be built but that developers lower the sale price according to your suggestion that the parking is being "pric[ed] . . . a bit too high," aren't we just subsidizing more private parking at below-cost prices and encouraging more cars be stored in the area?

Comment by charlie

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:10:11 EDT

@Lance, I think you overstating the case. Does she tell her followers news they like to hear? Yes, a bit. But I find most of her reporting ok.

What is very dangerous is to start believing in developers. They aren't your friends. And they have very little interest in what your neighborhood will look like in 20 to 25 years. That's where traditional neighborhood activists can be useful.

The "no parking" rule seem to me an excuse to let developer build something quickly without digging out a parking garage. You see that a lot in Europe.

Hamilton House parking -- 225 a month.
Chastleton: parking for sale at 45 or 50K.

Me thinks the problem is they are pricing parking a bit too high.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:08:21 EDT

OMG ... I just read Lydia's article.

She's like the Michele Bachmann of DC's so-called smartgrowthers ... telling 'em everything they want to hear. While coming off to the rest of us as more than a bit self-serving and certainly less than someone looking to understand and balance all views. I mean come on, she actually thinks that building costs determine what a place will rent for? Hmmm ... She should tell that to all the people who had to go through foreclosure because they couldn't sell what their homes for what they had cost them. (I.e., It's renters and buyers who determine what gets paid in the end.) And a developer being asked to deliver more ameniities like adequate off-street parking, and actual breathing room for the new AND old residents, isn't going to affect what people looking to have adequate off street parking and breathing room are going to be willing to pay. Let's not demand that everything be built to the lowest common denominator so that everyone can afford everything everywhere.

Maybe next Lydia will promise her people (and the tourists) $1 Circulator rides to visit the museums around the Mall. Oh wait, she's already delivered on that promise! ;)

Michele ... er ... I mean Lydia for president in 2012!

Comment by Greg

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:13:19 EDT

Blame Jack Evans! Surely you can find a way! Ha!

Comment by wr

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:46:10 EDT

@charlie-

Not only bike parking, but what about requiring a bike sharing station for new, large developments? Jurisdictions often require that developers (commercial or residential) supplement the surrounding infrastructure as a prerequisite for granting approval.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:51:16 EDT

Charle. I love your comment. It got me imagining how if this current generation of 'smart growthers' is successful, the next one will be writing articles supporting the developers' claims that 'I'm only putting electricity in there because otherwise the neighbors will complain. Most people nowadays would rather limit their carbon footprint anyways ... and live in the dark ... and eat MREs ... " And 'some' folks will probably take them seriously then too! LOL

Comment by charlie

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:42:21 EDT

So, basically, this developer wants to maximize their money, are building the building, and ignoring the parking issue. I'm sure they would prefer building something below code, or perhaps forgetting to install electricity, expect we have rules for that sort of thing.

It is a great question when GGW asks "is there going to be dedicated bike parking?" It is a silly one when GGW asks "Let's change rules that developers apparently don't care very much about anyway and call that smartGrowth."

Comment by Lance

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:37:39 EDT

Incidentally ... for those that were present at the ANC meeting. When this developer came to the Conservancy for review, he said they'd be putting in the minimum spaces required by law for the building PLUS replacing any spaces being displaced by the loss of the parking lot. I.e., He promised MORE spaces than the law required. (And it's recorded in the minutes.) Is he still promissing more spaces than required by law? Or has that changed? If I read David's report above correctly, it sounds like only the minimum required by law are now on the table ...

Comment by Lance

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:33:33 EDT

This developer came to a local Conservancy meeting, and he tried his 'we can't find anyone to rent the parking spaces' ... until a few members pointed out the inconsistencies in what he was saying. He ended up agreeing that yeah, if he opened them up to more than the folks living in the apartment buildings, then he'd have no problem renting them.

Like GGW has pointed out before, the problem really lies with the artificially low price for residential parking permit stickers. Everyone thinks that for $20 a year they're going to find on street parking ... and thus avoid the real cost of owning and storing a car. If we could figure out a way to take this illusion of cheap curbside parking away, you'd see all the developers clamoring to ADD more spaces than the law requires ... because people who really need spaces would really be looking ... and not all thinking 'I can get one of those cheap $20 a year spaces!'. Stop this externality and GGW's claim that more parking isn't absolutely needed and wanted around Dupont will be exposed as the bogus claim it is!

Comment by ahk

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:22:10 EDT

Oh, and by the way, we just might rent them on the open market for $200/ month so we don't mind.

Comment by greent

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:32:52 EDT

How many of these new (or refurbished) dupont condo's are studio/1 bedroom verse how many are 2-3 bedrooms (that a family with 2 kids could afford)?

24th and I is 90% GWU students and maybe 10% faculty.. cars not so important.

Blaming a lack of affordable housing that a developer will build on parking is a GGW red herring. The only reason developers build the 8% is because they are forced to - and the 8% is almost always the apts right above the trash or the ground level next to the entrance way - the ones hardest to sell anyway.