I just don't get it. I have no idea how anyone could oppose this. I'm usually good at seeing the other side's POV, but not this time.

Sometime I wonder if people just don't have anything better to do than rain on other peoples parade. I'm guessing this MacWood woman is a nutjob, just like Frank Winstead who opposed bench's and outdoor pingpong.

by SG on Oct 16, 2008 2:25 pm • link • report

SG-- there is no good reason to oppose this. Look at the renderings and read about the project: http://www.wisconsinavegiant.com/. It is a very good development and a huge improvement from what is there now. The antidevelopment crowd has got its way in Tenley and what do you see there-- land laying in fallow (i.e. the Tenley library) directly next to the Metro station and vacant stores. Connecticut Avenue provides a good example. Cleveland Park manages to successfully mangage the density right on CT Ave with maintaining excellent single-family neighborhoods only 1-2 blocks away.

by Ben on Oct 16, 2008 2:30 pm • link • report

I was not able to make this meeting, but really appreciate the write-up.

Yes, some of the Cleveland Park residents are nut-jobs when it comes to this project. They wanted to landmark it (see the picture, really) because it was an early example of a grocery store with street frontage and a rear parking lot. Richard Longstreth (Third Church fame) did the "research".

Every neighborhood has a grocery store now, so the idea of being a destination is a farce. In fact, agreeing with Ben, the number of parking spaces is going to spur more traffic through the neighborhood. If there were fewer spaces, those who lived 'down the hill" would be more likely to walk rather than drive.

Either way, this is a great proposal, one that has taken way too long to come to fruition. I hope the Zoning Commission and the Office of Planning stand firm to see this project through.

by William on Oct 16, 2008 2:34 pm • link • report

Opponents of this development formed a group, "Wisconsin

Avenue Neighborhood Coalition," to spread misinformation about this project and attempt to derail it. We are forming group to support this project and to see that it is successful. Let me know if you're interested in joining and I'll pass contact information along to the group's creator.

by Ben on Oct 16, 2008 2:51 pm • link • report

According to the artist's rendering, they're preserving the cool neon GIANT sign, which is all I care about. :-)

by Sue on Oct 16, 2008 3:08 pm • link • report

I think I can see their argument re: traffic. Isn't this area a real pain in the rear to get to without a car? If it were near a metro stop it may make sense to really ramp up the density, but it isn't. I love 2 Amy's (right down the street), but the only way to get there is to drive and park (probably illegally) in the Giant's lot becuase the street parking is always filled to the brim.

In regard to the other grocery stores:

Tenley Wholefoods has a large parking lot, the Giant in friendship heights has a large parking log, the Giant in Van Ness has a large parking lot, the Glover Park Safeway and Whole Foods have large parking lots (maybe not as large as the others).. anyway, you see the pattern.

by Local on Oct 16, 2008 3:39 pm • link • report

Local: This will also have a large parking lot (396 spaces). This project far exceeds the parking minimums required by the DC Office of Planning.

by Ben on Oct 16, 2008 3:42 pm • link • report

Actually, there probably isn't enough parking at this site. In fact, according to the PUD submission, the developer is seeking permission to build less than what zoming requires for the amount of commercial space. Moreover, as this website has pointed out many times, the zoning regulations probably should not be slavishly applied to all locations in the city. Where a site is well-served by Metro, for example, parking minimums may be overkill. Where a site is not on the Metro (the Giant PUD is not), minimums may not be sufficient.

The OP/DDOT Upper Wisconsin Study recently pointed out that the Macomb-Woodley commercial area streets were more than 90% full most week nights. The current surface Giant lot is completely full on Friday evenings, mostly with patrons of off-site (Macomb St) restaurants. The current Giant store is vastly underperforming retail, and other retail space (former Murphys, etc.) is empty and dark. The new garage would add about 100 spots over current surface commercial parking, but some number would be reserved for residents in south block flats. With a much larger, more attractive grocery store, other, presumably high-performing retail, new restaurants, etc., it's pretty likely that the new parking garage will be full, and existing patrons of 2Amys, Cactus Cantina, etc. will be squeezed from the garage and forced to compete with scarce street spaces.

So what to do? Underground parking is expensive, so it is unlikely that the PUD developers would want to add more. The size of the project might be scaled back, but Giant has not wanted to budge from its proposed 56,000 s.f. "SuperCenter" (Giant's website term for its largest stores). The existing zoning overlay limits the number of restaurants and bars in the area to reduce parking and traffic effects and encourage more diverse retail. The developer wants to eliminate the overlay, but some reasonable limit on the number of new restaurants and bars would help to keep parking demand in check at the time when McLean Gardens/Cleveland Park residents are coming home. Also, to encourage public transit use and limit car ownership, the developer could covenant that the new housing units will not participate in the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) system, a condition that has been accepted in some other development projects.

Finally, just of some critics of the project may fail to acknowledge the real desire for a more lively commercial area, some PUD supporters chose to ignore concerns about traffic, etc. The project sits on a major arterial road, but is surrounded by narrow, residential streets. One way that more intensive development has occured in Clarendon or Bethesda has been to put traffic calming on the side streets. By addressing parking and traffic issues, a lot of the rancor over new development goes away. Sure, someone might lose their favorite cut-through, or have to drive a couple blocks out of their way, but trying to mitigate some of the effects of a large project is better than pretending such effects don't exist, and may lead to a better result -- where most in the community feel that most of their concerns have been heard.

by Cleveland Park on Oct 16, 2008 4:25 pm • link • report

I attended the presentation in December by the developer and this proposal will actually include less square feet of retail than what is currently there. I also think the developer said it is not zoned for an additional restaurant. Additionally, as I said in my post above, shared parking is entire feasible for the parking reserved for the office space of this development since it will most likely be vacant in the peak evening hours for the restaurants.

To alleviate fears of increased traffic by new residents, the developer could use various financial incentives to encourage greater transit usage and reduce driving. The developer should charge for each additional parking spot above one spot per unit. Second, the developer should provide subsidized SmartCards to encourage greater use of the nearby bus lines on Porter Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue. This approach is being used with the MetroWest development in Vienna, Virginia.

by Ben on Oct 16, 2008 4:40 pm • link • report

I meant the presentation in September-- not December.

by Ben on Oct 16, 2008 4:41 pm • link • report

Incentives to encourage greater transit usage? What transit? This is not near a metro stop, and this is Upper Northwest where no one above college age uses the bus for anything other then getting to work (and that is still rare). The people who can afford these new residences will have cars. The people who will shop at the new stores will want to drive there. To think that anything else is going to happen is silly.

by local on Oct 16, 2008 4:45 pm • link • report

Won't someone please think of the traffic?!?

All kidding aside, I hope this works out for you over in Upper Northwest. I was thinking the same things about that parking lot when I was working on my Master's over at AU.

Ben, welcome to guest-blogging. I look forward to your next post.

by Cavan on Oct 16, 2008 4:48 pm • link • report

Encouraging transit usage - namely, by implementing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program - works. It can demonstrably reduce trips that would otherwise be taken in a car.

Via shared parking, internal trip capture, walking and biking usage (mode shift), transportation impacts can be avoided and mitigated - but it takes effort and a plan.

by Alex B. on Oct 16, 2008 4:56 pm • link • report

"Incentives to encourage greater transit usage? What transit? This is not near a metro stop"

Yeah man this whole area is soooooo isolated. I mean its not like its near a couple of 90 buses, 5 30 buses, the H buses, or within a 20-25 walk of 2 metro stations or anything... oh wait...

Seriously though, the fact that parking can be hard to find on weekends ALREADY makes us walk to Cactus Cantina when we go. And while parking may be hard to come by within a two block radius or so, if you go out another three or four blocks there is plenty of parking (especially to the north. Let's also not forget that the Cathedral has a new parking lot open until 11, and if you're gonna be coming out to the Giant that late I can assure you there will be plenty of parking in the neighborhood. Frankly if parking was harder to find in Upper NW+Georgetown I would use transit more, not stop going to places that are relatively easy to get to on the bus/metro.

Furthermore, I know a bunch of "older" people in this area who don't have cars or have gotten rid of them in recent years who seem to get by ok.

by local2 on Oct 16, 2008 8:09 pm • link • report

Alex: Do you have any examples of TDM's that has successfully encouraged increased use of buses and bicycles for a family's weekly supermarket trip? Do you even have examples of TFM's that have successfully reduced vehicle ownership in middle-income residential buildings that are not near a Metro?

by JW on Oct 16, 2008 10:50 pm • link • report

JW,

TDM programs usually focus on permanent occupants, whether they be workers or residents. Shoppers are much harder to reach, but they're also not the biggest complaint that people have (at least not in any logical sense) as people are complaining here about the added residential density, not the supermarket (which is already there).

As to your question - yes, TDM programs do convince people to walk to the supermarket, particularly the people that live in that building. This 'internal trip capture' is a huge factor in reducing trips. It's also aided by more density, counter-intuitive to how most people think development affects traffic.

The car ownership thing totally depends on the type of units and the programs provided. If they provide Zipcar spaces, give residents SmartBenefits, offer them information on what services are available to them, provide a shuttle to a nearby Metro station, all of those things have had demonstrable impacts - to say nothing about charging for parking and unbundling spaces from residential units.

by Alex B. on Oct 16, 2008 11:13 pm • link • report

Alex B: Examples? Studies? Data?

The data I have seen on areas, even near Metro, and with aggressive programs, with TDMs still have very high vehicle ownership per household for residents. They might walk to some places or some take the Metro to work even have SmartBenefits available at their jobs, but they still own cars and need parking and their visitors use cars as well.

by JW on Oct 16, 2008 11:30 pm • link • report

But the question isn't car ownership, the question is trips per day. Are you suggesting that people should or shouldn't be able to own or park their cars?

To me the issue is having choices. The beauty of this (and many other) locations is that the residents and customers will have non-car-based options to reside and support this new development. TDM helps manage that change and is an important tool.

For the studies etc you seek, Google is your friend.

by William on Oct 17, 2008 7:09 am • link • report

I live in the neighborhood, and went to the December meeting. The people trying to block this project are doing so because they know that they are currently lucky, and don't want their good luck taken away. There is no reason a major arterial road a few miles from the CBD core and serviced by bus and metro should have so little density. They know this, but are fighting to not have to give up a good thing. I think it's a selfish attitude, but I sorta get it.

by Dan on Oct 17, 2008 9:40 am • link • report

"Yeah man this whole area is soooooo isolated. I mean its not like its near a couple of 90 buses, 5 30 buses, the H buses, or within a 20-25 walk of 2 metro stations or anything... oh wait... "

Busses. Ok. Sure. Keep dreaming that people will take bus. The area is already packed because people don't take busses or the metro (because of the walk - up a hill).

It is crazy to think that adding more businesses or residences won't make it more packed. The question is whether or not it is worth it. Personally, I don't live there so I think it is. I also can see that the people who do live there have a point. You can't just pretend that this won't add to the congestion because that is disengenious. Say, "Yes it will have more congestion, but it is better for A,B,& C reasons."

by local on Oct 17, 2008 9:54 am • link • report

Dan,

I think you just hit the nail on the head with regards to the vocal minorities who oppose everything.

by Cavan on Oct 17, 2008 9:56 am • link • report

Has anyone considered developing some kind of community benefits agreement that paid money into a trust to develop transit? In addition to zipcars and a TDM plan, the developer could put money towards physical transportation improvements or at least toward lobbying to get city or federal money for the development. Anyone with a legal background know if this can be structured formally?

As to the ANC 3C board, MacWood shamelessly panders to the entitlement of Cleveland Park residents. She really likes to get into people's business. I recall of the WNC bus and car garage, she was concerned about the color of paint in the drivers' lounge.

by The King of Spain on Oct 17, 2008 10:02 am • link • report

I am not a part of the coalition against this development or anything like that, but at first blush of this proposal, I already have several worries about its impact. First, I am worried about how the development will make residential rental prices skyrocket. Already for a studio in the area, its over $1300 a month. Does anyone have any data on this proposal and its potential effects on rental rates? Rental rates are high, but I think most of us would agree that the current rates are worth it to live in such a great area. This is one of the only truly residential neighborhoods in D.C. that is safe, quiet and has easy access to the city. It seems to me that if you want to make it like other parts of the city or and surrounding areas like Bethesda or Cleveland Park (as mentioned on their website), perhaps you should move there rather than changing a neighborhood that has already defined itself as a place for families and those that want to escape the hustle and bustle of gentrified yuppie neighborhoods. Just a final note, I think it is really misleading to state that this proposal is just redoing the grocery store (i.e. just calling it www.wisconsinavegiant.com ) --the proposal is redoing an entire section of the neighborhood. The proposed new spaceship-looking Giant is only a small part of this grand proposal. The artist renderings make it quite obvious that the proposal has no intention on keeping the quiet neighborhood feel in tact and I think that is a real shame. Sometimes, less is more.

by southernbohyne on Oct 17, 2008 10:39 am • link • report

My guess is southernboyne would love it... if it were somewhere else. Yes, you are a NIMBY. Just embrace it! It will get built because objective people are the ones in charge, and logic will rule the day over emotion.

Sorry people, but you'll never win by "stopping change." Never. Ask your mother, grandmother, great grandmother. the nature of this world is that things change and progress with time. If you don't like it, then maybe Earth is not for you, because it doesn't matter where you live: you can't escape it.

by SG on Oct 17, 2008 10:57 am • link • report

Southernbohyne-- I do not know how expanding the supply of housing would raise housing prices, for rental or condos. For most goods, if you shift the supply curve out by adding more supply, prices consumers pay will moderate or decline. Adding 140 units will probably be too small to have any discernable signifcance but at the very least, it should not raise prices. Additionally, residents in the area might actually save money that would otherwise be spent on transportation since they would have a grocery store within walking distance to serve there needs. Numerous studies have shown that transportation is either the second or third largest household expense (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_704LRRB.pdf, http://www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20060119_CTODAIprezo.pdf)

by Ben on Oct 17, 2008 11:05 am • link • report

Wow, you guys are fast at replying. Okay so in response:

SG: I didn't comment on your character just because you have an opposing viewpoint, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy. If you have an actual rebuttal to my post or something that would help convince me to be on your side, that would be far more helpful than your ad hominem and straw man argument.

Ben: I agree that your supply and demand argument would work if you just added new housing. But the proposal includes increasing demand for this region by adding attractive new commercial spaces in addition to new housing. So that then shifts the supply and demand curve up, causing the supply (housing) to cost more. A good example of this is what has happened to Columbia Heights. Rental rates have shot through the roof over there after the infusion of commercial retailers and restaurants, compared to previously low rents due to high crime. Secondly, I do not believe that our neighborhood is underserved when it comes to grocery stores, as there are at least 5 grocery stores within a 2 mile radius of the Cathedral--now the quality and selection of the Wisconsin Giant could be improved for sure, but that is a different argument and I don't see how that relates to new housing. So far, I support improving just the grocery store, but I have yet to be convinced how adding more modern residences to the area can be justified by the simple proposal of improving a grocery store and parking. In some ways, it seems counterintuitive.

Contrary to what you may believe, I am not opposed to development or trying to improve our neighborhood. But I do not think that we should use a hatchet when a scalpel will do just fine. And I think that proponents of this very large scale project should be happy that there is so much interest in this because it affects us all. The more people that have input into this process, the better the eventual outcome will be.

by southernbohyne on Oct 17, 2008 11:33 am • link • report

"I think it is really misleading to state that this proposal is just redoing the grocery store (i.e. just calling it www.wisconsinavegiant.com ) --the proposal is redoing an entire section of the neighborhood. The proposed new spaceship-looking Giant is only a small part of this grand proposal."

And just "redoing the grocery store" involves replacing a 16,000+ sq.ft. store with a 56,000 sq.ft. "SuperCenter" store, so clearly that will have some impact. My own view is that the store doesn't have to be "Supersized" to be better -- the Trader Joe's in DC's West End is actually smaller than the current Giant, but is well-stocked and attractive (and has better prices on some items than Giant). But Giant seems inflexible about the SuperCenter size. So I return to my earlier point: Let's acknowledge that traffic and parking concerns in the McLean Gardens/Cleveland Park neighborhoods are real and figure out a creative way to deal with them (as the Comprehensive Plan actually requires) so that the project, or something like it, can go forward more smoothly and with less rancor.

by Cleveland Park on Oct 17, 2008 12:34 pm • link • report

Wow, when did all these new people who are pro-development, except for in Cleveland Park, appear on this blog?

Um, if you are going to be able to do anything about the structural flaws associated with the existing Giant/GC Murphy building, it will require money. That money is going to come from the rest of the development.

Pick your poison: leave it as is or accept something close to what Giant is proposing. I opt for the latter. It is a good plan, a long time in coming and will benefit the neighborhood and region for decades to come.

by William on Oct 17, 2008 12:46 pm • link • report

William: Please show me where they talk about structural flaws of the existing building in their proposal. I'm not sure what you are referring to: http://www.wisconsinavegiant.com/PUDStatement.pdf

by southernbohyne on Oct 17, 2008 1:28 pm • link • report

A store that size seems at odds with the "smart growth" development I've read described here on this blog. It's sure to attract people from far and wide ... People driving cars with large trunks. While I like the idea of this Giant store from what I've read about it, I'm surprised to see smart growth advocates liking it too ... Now, the proposed residential construction adjacent to the new store is not something I'm thinking much about ... other than to think that the people who live near that Giant should have the ultimate say as to whether any zoning exceptions should be allowed. It's their neighborhood afterall. And if the giant Giant isn't allowed as a matter of right ... well, it's their right to decide in that case too if an exception should be made ... Even if I like the idea of a giant Giant for northwest DC.

by Lance on Oct 17, 2008 8:37 pm • link • report

Not structural flaws in the sense that the building is failing, but rather the way the existing complex is designed across the Giant/Murphy's space such that it is not one even floor. Instead, there are several levels and steps within the structure making it virtually impossible to retrofit the existing space.

@Lance...as others have noted, there are a myriad other "grown up" grocery stores in the area. Cleveland Park is underserved (Brookeville and Macgruder's are ok, but not great) and changing lifestyles suggest that more prepared foods etc are a desirable result. This proposal helps address that demand.

I think the concerns about traffic and parking are incredibly overstated, but of course, that is a tactic of those who are opposed to change in their community.

This is an issue I have been following for a long time, and it is very gratifying to see that silent majority finally come together to advocate for this proposal.

Lance, I would also ask how you define "the people who live near the Giant"? Are these people who live within 20 feet? 50 feet? 200 feet? What is the threshold in your opinion?

And I would also ask where the interests of the immediate neighbors end, and where the interests of the city and region begin? More density in the urban center, more 'green' building, more residential and commercial tax dollars, more jobs. Are these things that the immediate community ought to be able to trump?

by William on Oct 17, 2008 8:54 pm • link • report

William, For one, it would be the local ANC and whatever civic organizations exist in that neighborhood. Secondly, the neighbors most effected. So, yes, those "within 20 feet", get more of a voice than those "within 100 feet" etc. It's not that the rest of the city doesn't get any say ... but the weight given should dimenish the less that one is directly affected by the proposed changes. It's the law in the District. And it's only fair.

Yes, it's easy for you and I to sit back here and say "wow wouldn't it be neat to have a giant Giant within an easy drive from home?!" But that is not fair, and fortunately the law recognizes that. We'd be the ones benefiting but not the ones suffering the additional traffic, etc. such a development would bring.

If the benefits which such a change will bring to the neighborhood outweigh the detriments it will bring with it, then the developer should make that known. If the neighborhood ... and adjacent neighbors ... are getting a good deal, then why would they oppose it? If it has to be imposed on the people there, then perhaps it is not in line with the goals of smart growth and its livable neighborhoods.

by Lance on Oct 17, 2008 9:16 pm • link • report

Lance, you have no idea where I live in relation to this development proposal, nor do you have any idea what the consensus of the community may be.

Having had my finger on the pulse of this project for about 10 years, I think I know how I am affected and more importantly how the majority in the community feels.

The ANC Chair and the CPCA do not speak for me.

by William on Oct 17, 2008 9:20 pm • link • report

Lance - your question opens up a more fundamental discussion on political science & zoning.

One theory: When is it in any municipality's immediate interest to gain residents? It's not - gaining residents is close to a value neutral proposition for local residents, assuming that income levels are similar & so per capita tax burden (as well as expenditures) remain constant. It is in their direct interest to shift residents around so that they are more densely packed and thus, they leak less money in infrastructure, energy & imports, while their property values increase significantly.

Another: When is it in any municipality's interest to gain citizens? When they can put them somewhere that maximizes sunk infrastructural costs (1 fire station that is able to serve 1000 as easily as it can serve 200) & thus increase net per-capita tax revenues & expenditures (allowing them to build a police substation as well).

A third: When is it in any municipality's interest to gain citizens? When the leaders (business leaders if the addition is desirable residential, residents if the addition is desirable retail, elected officials looking for advancement regardless) of that municipality wants to gain power.

I'm not sure what I believe. Something about this approach to zoning bothers me greatly - a plebiscite from a bunch of citizens to decide whether their neighbor-landowners gets to use his property in a reasonable manner. Their influence should be closer to 'harmful to the neighborhood beyond a reasonable doubt' rather than a plurality-view of 'is this going to benefit me?'. Strict zoning laws for private property are a drag on sustainability, in general - they hamper the landowners from being able to adapt to changing conditions; But zoning-law-by-referendum may be even more questionable - it allows a tyranny of the majority.

by Squalish on Oct 17, 2008 10:07 pm • link • report

""Having had my finger on the pulse of this project for about 10 years, I think I know how I am affected and more importantly how the majority in the community feels."

I think that opinions are mixed (leaving aside how one defines the "community" or "neighborhoods" surrounding the project). Virtually all of my immediate neighbors (who live on streets to the east of the project area) want an improved Giant. Who wouldn't, especially compared to the dirty, poorly stocked store there now?!. A better store doesn't necessarily mean the nearly 60,000 square foot SuperCenter that Giant wants to build, because many of us honestly believe that it will be "destination" retail and put a lot more vehicles on the side (non-arterial) streets. The developer's first traffic study (which understandably makes assumptions and inferences most favorable to its position) states that traffic to and from the site will more than double. The proposed store is more than double the size of the Van Ness Giant. It is larger than the Giant at Friendship Heights (a more dense area that both DC and Montgomery County have planned as a regional shopping district). A 30,000-40,000 sq. ft. store would still be double the size of the present one, but would be smaller than a "SuperCenter." So presumably Giant intends to use the much larger size as a distinguishing marketing feature from smaller stores in NW and close-in Maryland, because a SuperCenter seems pretty lbig just to serve the "neighborhood oriented retail" zoning (defined in the regs as 1 mile in radius) that applies to the project area now. The side streets immediately east of the PUD area (e.g., Ordway, Macomb, Newark) carry a lot of traffic already, including for the many schools and other institutions in the area, and commuters who toggle back and forth between Wisconsin, Reno and Connecticut to find the fastest way downtown or home to Maryland. This is particularly true when Wisconsin Avenue is clogged, as it often is at rush hours. In the past decade, this area has seen a marked increase in families with kids who walk and bike through the neighborhood. The streets south and west of the project face similar traffic pressures, although the ANC representative for McLean Gardens has stated that residents there don't want traffic calming, so perhaps there is less concern about traffic in that neighborhood. Streets adjacent to the Macomb restaurant area already face parking pressures, particularly in the evening, and residents there worry about the effects of more restaurants and bars. It's probably also fair to say that if one lives off a direct route to or from the PUD area, then one is probably less concerned about the traffic and parking effects of the PUD.

by NW Walker on Oct 18, 2008 6:57 pm • link • report

@NW Walker

1) Traffic to and from the Giant will double. This does not mean traffic in the neighborhood will double, but rather the ingress/egress to the development itself. This is one of the misrepresentations of the opponents.

2) This development is on Wisconsin Avenue. Most, if not all of the new traffic generated will be coming to and from the arterial, not via Newark/Ordway/Macomb east of Wisconsin.

Even still, we live in a city, want city amenities and are happy to live with a slightly lesser suburban feel in exchange.

by William on Oct 18, 2008 7:12 pm • link • report

William,

A 60,000 sq. ft. SuperCenter is the kind of store one would find in suburban Gaithersburg, not in a city, so it's hardly the sort of city "amenity" one normally thinks of.

Moreover, Cleveland Park and other parts of NW Washington are less urban than Bethesda and Ballston/Clarendon. If we want more of the amenities that they have, then let's follow their example and encourage development on the arterial roads and near Metro, but at the same time protect adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods from cut-through traffic and commercial parking.

One way to encourage Giant's traffic to go on Wisconsin rather than the side streets is to put the vehicle entrances to the complex directly on Wisconsin (as Whole Foods did in Glover Park).

So there are ways to have more intensive development yet not impact the quality of life for the surrounding neighborhood(s),

by NW Walker on Oct 18, 2008 8:05 pm • link • report

Curb cuts on arterials go against good walkability principals. This is why the existing curb cuts on Newark and presumably Macomb would be the main access points.

Would you rather have a 55,000 grocery store, and other retail opportunities, or would you prefer the existing condition?

It is basically an either/or.

I would prefer the former. The latter is an embarassment and a tribute to the "neighborhood leaders".

by William on Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm • link • report

Increased cut-through traffic on narrow neighborhood streets goes against walkability principles even more. But why does it have to be "either/or"? I want both an improved store and a residential neighborhood that is safe for pedestrians. As developers know, nearly all development proposals are shaped by the review process and the requirements of the comprehensive plan, particularly where the developer wants to change the existing zoning.

by NW Walker on Oct 18, 2008 9:09 pm • link • report

Narrow streets? This isn't Olde Towne London. The residential streets are the same as all of the residential streets as part of the grid system.

Either/Or? I find it ironic that the opponents are now suggesting that Giant build what was proposed 8 years ago. The economy has changed. It is either/or.

by William on Oct 18, 2008 9:33 pm • link • report

William is right that the existing conditions are an embarrassment. I think Walker has a point about the traffic, and about what they've done in Bethesda. I visit Bethesda Row a lot, where there is also a quite large Giant store, and it's very difficult to park or cut through the nearby neighborhood (Edgemoor, I think). They did something similar around Friendship Heights. So why can't they build the new Giant and the other stores and condos, but fix McLean Garden, Cleveland Park, etc. streets, to deal with the extra traffic and parking demand? Maybe use some one-way streets, do not enter signs, speed bumps, special parking zones. and so on, to encourage traffic to use Wisconsin Ave. and to park in the new garage, rather than spilling more onto local streets. Win-win, it seems to me....

by Cindy on Oct 18, 2008 9:52 pm • link • report

Cindy, the only problem with that is that DC has a grid system. Once you start c losing off streets and messing with the integrity of the grid, you cause spill off problems down stream.

Case in point is the River Road/Wisconsin Ave entry from Montgomery County where the residents were able to get DDOT to implement "No Turns" during rush hour etc causing all traffic to come in via River or Wisconsin. Never mind that some people need to get across town, so now, the only way to do that is via Military Road, or go around Tenleytown, which is usually a congestion area.

If the commercial area in Cleveland Park is going to get "special" treatment, then so too the areas around Friendship Heights (which already has no access and barriers), Chevy Chase, Woodley Park and so on.

If you look at the closed off area between Western/Bradley/CT Ave, you see what happens when sections of streets are closed to non-residents.

As DC taxpayers, we should have access to these streets. now if they want to limit it to DC Residents and mitigate out of state vehicles, that is a different discussion (grin).

by William on Oct 18, 2008 10:00 pm • link • report

William,

I wasn't thinking of restricting access to streets. How would you do that, though your suggestion to limit them to DC residents is a tempting thought!. But discouraging added traffic from spilling onto side streets seems reasonable to me, and it's why DC and lots of other places calm traffic where that makes sense. If DC has a grid, it's an imperfect one, not like in Manhattan, and I understand that certain streets are intended by the Transportation Dept to carry through traffic flow and others not. Not sure I understand the point about "special" treatment for McLean Gardens and C.P. They've done some things already on some back streets on the DC and Maryland sides at Friendship Heights. There are streets in AU Park and the Palisades that you can't enter during certain hours. I'll bet if they were building a large development in the neighborhood commercial district in Chevy Chase, people might want something done about traffic flow. It just seems logical, that if you have a big retail project like Giant's, you deal with the negative effects as best you can. It's not rocket science, but is about achieving a more optimal outcome.

by Cindy on Oct 18, 2008 10:34 pm • link • report

Right, but look at the negative impact on overall traffic flow in those areas where it has been artifically restricted.

I am not disagreeing with you on one level, but on another, I think there are ways of dealing with the issue without going to an extreme such as Chevy Chase, Maryland has done.

by William on Oct 18, 2008 10:53 pm • link • report

So if I'm following you:

Curb cuts hurt walkability because of the inching out, the quick left turn past traffic to get in (ignoring pedestrians) and the unpredictability of quick right turns. People expect that in a side street where the only cars are likely to be headed to the shopping center, but not on the sidewalk or bike lane that goes with the busy arterial. They are particularly harmful on arterials because of the amount of increased pedestrian through traffic, and the fact that the street is busy, so you can't easily check if someone is going to turn.

If you can't have a mid-block light specifically for a busy facility, then ideally you'd have one in and one out with lights to control both: A light which turns you onto a side road, then a right turn (one way) into the parking complex, and another right turn (one way) out of the underground parking complex on the other side of the block, on a different side street, & can reenter the arterial at another light. This minimizes the potential for pedestrian problems.

Is this your viewpoint William? Do you have a better system NW Walker?

by Squalish on Oct 18, 2008 11:31 pm • link • report

Part of the problem with this area is for the past decade, what had been, and what should be a very vibrant commercial center has stood essentially vacant. It is clear that in situations like this, DDOT perfers to 1) not add new curb cuts and 2) keep vehicular traffic off the pedestrian area on the arterial, so Squalish, yes, you have my viewpoint correct.

There would likely not be a mid-block signal between Macomb and Newark. However, the Pedestrian Master Plan suggests adding a HAWK pedestrian signal at the intersection of Idaho and Wisconsin.

by William on Oct 19, 2008 7:37 am • link • report

Yes, one way reduce traffic impact on neighborhood streets is a mid-block signal on Wisconsin with a direct access to the project's large new garage. William, you seem to be knowledgeable about DDOT, but there are precedents for mid-block signals on Wisconsin-- the new mid-block National Cathedral garage signal, the Whole Foods in Glover Park (entrance not on Calvert) and the Friendship post office (access not on Upton). Otherwise, if you take Squalish's helpful diagram, the challenge is to encourage the traffic to and from the Giant retail complex to use Wisconsin (the wide arterial road I assume is represented by the left-right lines), rather than diverting north and south (or east and west ) on side streets -- the narrow lines at the edge of the diagram. Cindy, you mentioned some of the measures used elsewhere to address similar challenges.

by NW Walker on Oct 19, 2008 9:18 am • link • report

NW Walker: "Moreover, Cleveland Park and other parts of NW Washington are less urban than Bethesda and Ballston/Clarendon. If we want more of the amenities that they have, then let's follow their example and encourage development on the arterial roads and near Metro, but at the same time protect adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods from cut-through traffic and commercial parking."

I absolutely support more density in Tenley also but the anti-development crowd is up to their same games there too. Directly above and adjacent to the Metro stations you have the former Tenley library which is a patch of weeds, a vacant shell of a building where Hollywood Video was, and a surface parking lot. The antidevelopment crowd cites the same recycled concerns about more traffic, changing the character of the neighborhood, etc...

The Washington Post has an excellent article today about Montgomery Co's plans to redevelop Rockville Pike (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/18/AR2008101800825.html). This is a suburban county that has the courage to plan for 25 story buildings because it will reduce sprawl, etc... The neighbors in this area, which is much closer to the central business district, won't even allow 5-story housing on the major corridor into the District.

by Ben on Oct 19, 2008 10:07 am • link • report

William, Squalish, NW Walker: An interesting comparison would be to look at the Whole Foods in Glover Park, which as an entrance from Wisconsin Avenue and the curb cut to serve it. Here is the link for the report: http://www.tooledesign.com/projects/gloverpark/reports.html. Anecdotal observations suggest that this creates more traffic and is more hazardous to pedestrians than if cars were able to enter from a side street. Cars exiting from the parking garage onto Wisc Ave are particularly hazardous because there is a steep incline from the subterranean parking garage onto Wisconsin Avenue, which requires cars to accelerate. That said, however, this risk can be mitigated by walking on the other side of the street.

by Ben on Oct 19, 2008 10:22 am • link • report

Ben: Mayor Fenty’s July surprise is the reason why the corner where the former Tenley library was is currently a patch of weeds, rather than a construction site. Prior to that meeting, DCPL projected that the new library would be open to the public in March 2010. The block where the former Hollywood Video was is zoned C-3-A, which allows a relatively dense mixed use development as a matter of right, so you should look to the landowner to explain the condition of that site. And, there is a vacant building at 4600 Wisconsin Avenue with no sign that construction is planned any time in the near future, where a Planned Unit Development had been approved, in December 2004. How about some fact-checking before you post?

by ISTRHWPAHL on Oct 19, 2008 10:54 am • link • report

Ben,

If density is what you want, there's plenty of developable land in Tenleytown. How about the parking lot where the Dominos Pizza hut sits, the one-story CVS (old Hechingers) and the land on the NE corner of Wisconsin and Abermarle St.? Why is it necessary to take play space from school kids to have denser development? It seems like a developer sees a chance to get public assets at below market rates. The library rebuilding is budgeted and Janney School renovation was programmed (5th in line, until it was pushed way back in line because of the "public private partnership"). Let the market support more density in Tenley, rather than using public assets for it. The AU Park area around Janney is crawling with kids -- it seems illogical to take away recreational space from the school.

by Janney Mom on Oct 19, 2008 12:47 pm • link • report

I think my comments may have been misinterpreted. I do not support curb cuts on Wisconsin Avenue, for the same reasons cited regarding the Glover Park Whole Foods.

The access to the new development ought to be focused where the existing curb cuts reside on Macomb and Newark. The plans also show access from Idaho Ave.

by William on Oct 19, 2008 2:36 pm • link • report

Have you ever looked at the stats! City buses are stereotyped as 'poor'. What people believe is what is practiced. If one wants people to use PT, give them a LIGHTRAIL!!! It worked in California, it will work here. And anyway, 25 minutes to walk to a train station might have gotten you home behind the wheel.

by Adam on Oct 24, 2008 10:29 pm • link • report

I think virtually everyone in the CP neighborhood would support the PUD if the city and Giant agreed to traffic calming on the surrounding neighborhood streets. Residents of McLean Gardens are already discussing it on their listserv as are residents on the East side of Wisconsin. Let's address the various traffic issues, get the vast majority of residents to sign on, and move on to build this project. I like the plan and want to support it, but I am not in a position to do so until someone addresses the traffic issues. Frankly, I do not understand the reluctance to discuss traffic.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 11:11 am • link • report

Traffic calming should only be installed once it is determined that there has been an effect. Installing it preemptively simply sends the message that every street in the city that is not an arterial or collector should have calming on it.

by William on Oct 28, 2008 11:19 am • link • report

The city does not need to install it preemptively -- this thing will not be built until 2012 -- but at least make a commitment to calming on the neighboring streets. Even Giant has represented that traffic is likely to increase 30% and developers' estimates are always conservative. A 30% jump may not be a major increase for an arterial road, but it is for a neighborhood street with a residential classification.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 12:28 pm • link • report

Every residential street in the city is eligible for traffic calming if conditions warrant. It wouldn't matter if it was close to the Giant or not. Making a commitment like this is paramount to saying 'we will obey the law'.

by William on Oct 28, 2008 1:34 pm • link • report

William, This is a PUD application, and among other things, the PUD evaluation standards require a finding that: “The impact of the project on the surrounding area and the operation of city services and facilities shall not be found to be unacceptable, but shall instead be found to be either favorable, capable of being mitigated, or acceptable given the quality of public benefits in the project.”

As Local Resident pointed out, this project would have an impact. The necessary finding cannot be made unless the options are explored and it can be clearly demonstrated that an acceptable plan for mitigation is possible. After the project is approved and constructed, it is too late to see that it has an unacceptable impact, and that impact cannot be mitigated.

by Let’s determine if it meets the evaluation standards on Oct 28, 2008 2:02 pm • link • report

Lance, I do not think we are saying different things. All I am suggesting is to not actually implement traffic calming unless or until it is warranted. Putting speed bumps, or whatever, concurrent with the project coming on line will simply push traffic to different streets. if it is demonstrated that there IS an impact, then the contingencies as outlined in the studies being assembled now, should be installed, but it shouldn't be a fait acompli.

What happens if proponents are correct that many people are walking to the neighborhood center, thus resulting in negligible traffic impact? Then, there is no need for calming. No?

by William on Oct 28, 2008 2:30 pm • link • report

Of course, calming will divert traffic to other streets, but isn't that the point of it? To divert excess traffic from residential streets to arterials, minor arterials or collector streets? I am not talking about closing off streets that are classified as residential. I just want to make sure they do not carry more traffic than they're supposed to. Each class of street should carry the appropriate level of traffic.

On another note, I actually doubt that many people will walk to the new shopping center. I regularly walk to Giant area, and I observe that the vast majority of my neighbors, who live just one or two blocks away -- drive. Same with the local restaurants. People like to exercise, but they do not like to walk in their daily lives. In fact, it is my elderly neighbors who are most inclined to walk while tyhe young ones drive everywhere. It's disappointing.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 3:43 pm • link • report

@Local Resident

So which of the streets do you propose receive traffic calming preemptively? The development will sit on the west side of Wisconsin between Newark and Macomb. So what, Newark, Macomb, Lowell, Ordway, Idaho and 38th Street?

If you put calming on all of the streets, then it will not disperse any additional traffic.

Porter to the north and Woodley to the south are already the minor collectors.

So where are you proposing traffic calming?

by William on Oct 28, 2008 4:11 pm • link • report

I live on the East side of Wisconsin, so I only focused on those streets when I reviewed Giant's original traffic study. I understand they are doing/have done another.

Anyway, the streets on the East side have different classifications under DC law. I know Lowell, Newark, and Ordway are residential streets, Macomb is a collector, and Woodley and Porter have some sort of upgraded status (collector or minor arterial). Wisconsin and Mass are the arterials. I can't remember about Idaho or 38th, but I'm sure they fit into the same scheme.

Giant together with DDOT should consider the likely increase in traffic, think about where the traffic should flow, and then develop a plan to encourage cars in the right directions. The goal should be to make sure the different streets carry the amount of traffic appropriate to the classification. A residential street should not carry the same amount of traffic as a collector level street just as a collector should not carry the same amount as an arterial. Does that make sense? Therefore, the goal of the traffic plan should be to put most of the increased traffic on the arterials with appropriate amounts filtering down to the collectors and finally the residential streets.

If the plan is in place when the shopping center opens, it will be immediately safe for neighborhood pedestrians and those customers who drive will adapt to the routes right away, rather than having to re-adjust everyting six months later. I do not understand why many proponents (I say many because I generally consider myself one) object to this sort of analysis.

I have not seen the pre-hearing filing, but I am hoping that Giant has addressed some of these issues.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 4:40 pm • link • report

So your solution is to cordon off the area between 34th, Woodley and Porter to non-local traffic?

I mean really, what is the proposal here? This is a city and taxpayers pay for those streets.

by William on Oct 28, 2008 4:49 pm • link • report

Absolutely not. Those were not my words at all. I do not advocate cordoning off anything. I have not done a study, I am not an expert and I don't have a specific proposal. I just want the experts to do that analysis to make sure each street carries traffic appropriate for its current classification. There are probably a number of ways to channel traffic if the study were to show that any street was likely to attract more than the appropriate level of traffic.

I know that Trudy Reeves and the McLean Gardens residents are looking at how to make different streets one-way to limit cut-through traffic. You can check out their listserv. I am not aware of any specific proposals on my side of Wisconsin. I think everyone is waiting to see the results of the study to figure out what the potential problems would be.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 5:58 pm • link • report

Question....the initial study indicated that the intersection of Newark and 34th would be rated an "F" under this proposal and would require a traffic signal. Given the volume of incidents and the expected level of service, would you support the installation of a signal at that intersection?

I ask because nearby residents have been fighting against it for years despite the incredible number of accidents which occur there.

by William on Oct 28, 2008 7:03 pm • link • report

I did not see that in the current study. I probably would not support a signal there because I think it would tend to make Newark more of a through street from Wisconsin to Connecticut and thereby increase traffic on a street that is classified as residential. I might reconsider that position if the signal were part of a comprehensive traffic plan that managed the flow from the Giant effectively so that the increase in traffic was limited, I might reconsider that position. I am in favor of a truly comprehensive traffic plan for the neighborhood. I am in favor of keeping as much of the Giant traffic on the arterial roads designed to handle high traffic volume.

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 7:53 pm • link • report

I just looked at the 5/14/2008 traffic study and it does not call for a signal at 34th and Newark. In fact, the study does not seem to anticipate much, if any, new traffic in the neighborhood. Apparently, the store intends for Idaho to be the major east-west through street. Is that how you read the plan?

Does anyone know if Giant has developed a new traffic plan as part of its pre-hearing submission? If so, when will that be up on the website?

by Local Resident on Oct 28, 2008 9:57 pm • link • report