Note WMATA committee today approved working with Clark to realize the property consolidation described.

by jnb on Apr 12, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

Tenleytown NIMBYs will not be happy until Tenleytown resembles a gated suburb with full metro access and Eastern Bloc-style empty storefronts.

by aaa on Apr 12, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report

Personally, I think WMATA should use their leverage in these projects to threaten to close the metro station or move it to another location if neighborhoods fight too strongly against transit-friendly construction so close to a metro station.

If the metro station isn't going to be used to its full potential, then get rid of it, particularly since the added value of a metro station mostly comes from the increase in property values and commercial activity that goes along with a station.

If Tenleytown acts like it doesn't want a metro station (and that's how they're acting), then they don't have to have one.

by JustMe on Apr 12, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report

How long did it take to get approval to redevelop the old Sears in Tennleytown?
There are numerous large buildings in the neighborhood and this corridor would be able to support higher density.
It reminds me of Cleveland Park and rejecting the Giant - despite the fact that across the street was a highrise apartment building looming over smaller single-family homes.
Both of these developments are more neighborhood friendly and blend into the neighborhood. I say build it!
Also - what the heck is a liner townhome? Is it actually a townhouse or just a facade?

by andy2 on Apr 12, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report

Fan-freakin'-tastic. What kind of person would oppose this?

by Neil Flanagan on Apr 12, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report

Andy: It's just a shallow townhouse with windows on only one side.

by Neil Flanagan on Apr 12, 2012 2:35 pm • link • report

This is a nice plan and a thoughtful critique. If Clark and WMATA are able to come to an agreement about the facility on the corner, it could be a terrific advancement for the neighborhood. Hopefully others in the area will weigh in positively on this to the ANC and the Zoning Commission.

by William on Apr 12, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

What a nice project. Nice architecture, nice plan, nice massing, what are we missing? I'd actually amp up the density, but baby steps.

by Thayer-D on Apr 12, 2012 3:54 pm • link • report

If Tenleytown NIMBYS do not want it, we will gladly take it over in Hill East. We have plenty of vacant land along 19th Street right next to the south entrance of the Stadium-Armory Metro...

Of course, that would mean that some DC government employees would lose their free parking...

by rg on Apr 12, 2012 4:48 pm • link • report

@JustMe: close the Metro station or move it to another location? Really?

by DC Dave on Apr 12, 2012 5:09 pm • link • report

All I can say to Safeway is, "Good luck". Today on Channel 9 I saw the news reports indicating that the Giant near Cactus Cantina is closing tonight--and that construction on the new Giant will begin shortly. I can't believe that that renovation and project really will break ground.

I remember when I used to live near AU that they were talking about renovating that Giant. I moved to that area in 2000 before moving to Ward 4 in 2009. I remember how the neighbors kept whining and complaining about the new Giant and no version of the project seemed to satisfy them. They went to court, fought, fought some more, and bickered for almost ten years. I know the neighbors had lost in court several times trying to make the property a "historical landmark".

If the history of the Cathedral Commons project is an indication, look for a bunch of busy-body neighbors with nothing better to do to whine, fight, and complain for years on end. Because it is a wealthy neighborhood with tons of educated people and lawyers, look for them to tie the courts with lawsuit after lawsuit.

So, if Safeway is lucky, perhaps they'll be able to break ground in 2022 or 2023. For it may very well take that long with all the bickering and complaints from the neighbors. If I were Safeway, having seen what happened with the Giant further down Wisconsin Avenue, I'd think twice about investing the time in trying to upgrade that store due to the inevitable opposition that will follow.

by Rain17 on Apr 12, 2012 5:54 pm • link • report

JustMe: close the Metro station or move it to another location? Really?

Really. I have a vindictive streak.

Keep in mind that the metro runs at a loss. Insofar as it provides economic benefits, it's because of both the traffic relief and the increased value of the real estate due to the ability to exploit it for additional economic activity. If additional development of the area around the metro station isn't allowed, then the metro station itself becomes a form of deadweight loss.

by JustMe on Apr 12, 2012 7:13 pm • link • report

Longtime Tenleytown resident here:
I absolutely love this redevelopment, and have been since I first saw the plans several months ago, although I preferred having the top floor that was recently removed. I truly think that there is a silent majority in the neighborhood that is pro smart growth. Most support development on the Safeway, Babe's Billiards, and Cathedral Commons (Cathedral Heights Giant) developments. About ten years ago, the Cityline building was built amid nimbyism but since then, the building has been clearly a huge benefit to the neighborhood.

Little side note: the development is equidistant from both the Tenleytown and Friendship Heights Metro stations. I expect most residents would use the Jenifer Street entrance to Friendship Heights. The Tenleytown station is up a very steep hill from the development and after ascending that hill, one has to descent three escalators. Friendship Heights looks like a much better choice for future residents.

by arm on Apr 12, 2012 7:16 pm • link • report

Arm--I could just see a bunch of neighbors who don't have anything better to do causing problems like they did for the Cathedral Commons Project, which took more than ten years to actually be built.

by Rain17 on Apr 12, 2012 7:31 pm • link • report

I have always been a big fan of this project. I went to GDS and remember the wrath of Tenleytown neighbors when the school expanded - they forbid Ward 3 Permit Holder students from parking in Ward 3 spots. All I can say is good-luck to Safeway/Clark.

by ACG on Apr 12, 2012 8:36 pm • link • report

I like your vindictive side, JustMe. Here's an idea that could *actually* be implemented (well, not easily, but it has no capital expenses), threaten residents who won't allow new development near Metro stations where there's obviously both space and demand with cutting their service in half. Skip-stop over them with every other train outside of rush hour. Don't want new development? Fine, wait 40-50 minutes for a train home after 10 PM!

by Ms. D on Apr 12, 2012 8:46 pm • link • report

I would like to see a project similar to this go forward. However, how does the District address infrastructure and educational space needs of the infill development? Both Janney and Deal are at or over capacity and have virtually brand new buildings. I heard from a Janney parent that their kid will be in a single classroom with more than 45 students and two teachers next year. There is virtually ZERO chance that additional capital investment in expanding schools would be approved in the next decade for Ward 3. In fact, there are major investments needed in other wards. So when there is a spill over NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY, can it be addressed? What is the role of developers/profit makers? What is the role of the community as a whole? Any ideas?

by Tom M on Apr 13, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

@Tom M:

People with young children likely not choose to live in a one or bedroom condo. I would guess that you could count all of the children who live in the Cityline development on a single hand. It is self-selection. Families with school-age children are far more likely to live in single-family homes.

Second, the Safeway development and Babe's will help the District generate significant tax revenue. I'd think these units will sell for $300,000 - $700,000 and if there are 190 units in this development, it will generate a lot of new property tax revenue to pay for schools, transit, libraries, and various other social services. Similarly, the income taxes from all of these new residents will be substantial.

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

Generalized benefits with local-specific negative externalities still leaves those externalities unaddressed. Montgomery County had -- at least at one point -- requirements for development projects to help fund local infrastructure and school improvements. Every project with additional housing in NW DC will have some effect on school crowding. That is a localized negative externality. I agree there are many upsides as well. But many don't want to even consider the impacts or practical ways to address them. That tends to increase the number or vehemence of those opposing development. Rather than simply call people with concerns negative names, perhaps the pro development interests should consider other approaches as well.

by Tom M on Apr 13, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

@No NIMBY -- A $300k property generates about $2,000/year in property taxes. 190 properties with that average would generate $380,000. The average teacher salary and benefits fully loaded is $100,000/year. So you could pay for a teacher, but not adding a classroom. But you've suggested it would buy schools, transit, libraries, and social services. As to income taxes - why do you think they will be "New residents" and hence a net gain in income taxes?

by Tom M on Apr 13, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

"$300k property generates about $2,000/year in property taxes. 190 properties with that average would generate $380,000. The average teacher salary and benefits fully loaded is $100,000/year. So you could pay for a teacher, but not adding a classroom."

why do you need to add a teacher and a classroom for 190 condos, mostly small ones? Do you really think 190 of those units will generate 25 plus public school students? Vs singles, childless couples, empty nesters, parents of infants/toddlers/preschoolers, and users of private schools?

"As to income taxes - why do you think they will be "New residents" and hence a net gain in income taxes?"

because price and availability of housing constrain the number of new residents in the district?

Of course if this just draws off people who would otherwise live in say, NoMa, then the incremental costs for schools is just a shift and not incremental.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 13, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

@Tom M:

As I've said, you could probably count the number of people with school-age children who would choose to live in a one or two bedroom condo (especially when there are many signle-family homes in the neighborhood) on one hand. Even by your admission, the new property tax revenue generated from 190 of the low-end estimate for the condo prices would pay for four new DC public school teachers. Not all thte units will be $300,000. Some of the two bedroom units on the upper floors will likely be $500,000 - $700,000. This developmen will generate quite a lot of new property tax revenue for the District.

"As to income taxes - why do you think they will be "New residents" and hence a net gain in income taxes?"

My first guess would be that the District grew by nearly 17,000 new residents in 2011, the fastest growth in the country. If we want the District to keep generating jobs and have a strong economy, we need to provide housing for all of the people who want to move here. Perhaps you'd rather have Bethesda and Arlington get this tax revenue instead?

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 11:39 am • link • report

why do you think they will be "New residents" and hence a net gain in income taxes?

I highly doubt that the new units will be filled by currently-employed homeless people in the District. More likely they will be bought by people who live elsewhere, or the previous District place they lived in will be taken over by someone from the outside.

I live in a building that, as far as I can tell, has no school-aged children in it. You can thank us for supporting your butt.

by JustMe on Apr 13, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

The proposal looks fantastic. I would prefer some more density, but I would take this in a heartbeat. Improving that blight on Wisonconsin Ave would really help the neighborhood out! Now lets get this built and put a nice mixed use development in at the Babes site! Tenleytown desperately needs it!

by Lee on Apr 13, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

This project is literally in my backyard. I know it is so easy to boil everything down into black-and-white, neat little boxes (good guys vs. bad guys). But I ask that folk who share smart growth objectives not mischaracterize the most affected neighbors as NIMBYs, or anti-smart growth, or part of an anti-smart-growth cabal, or opposed to mixed use, or wanting to kill this project or re-create a Giant situation. We are major supporters of a new store and we support mixed use. We think Torti is doing a great job. But, we ask supporters of Ward 3 Vision to work WITH us neighbors (as some of you have reached out to us), rather than some few who -- out of a lack of knowledge -- choose instead to objectify us by saying we are just like some notion in your mind of who we are. We are attempting to negotiate some very specific, and very reasonable changes. Changes that would still result in large, high-density mixed use. For example, I asked for 150 units rather than 200, because of what this will do to improve massing and traffic. Even if you disagree with my request, I ask: Does requesting a new 150-unit building on the same lot (not across the street, but sharing the same piece of land) as our townhomes -- sound unreasonable, smart-growth killing, and ideologically NIMBY? If that small difference could affect whether any sunlight comes into your children's rooms, or through your skylights during several months of the year -- wouldn't anyone, irrespective of ideology, want to help tweak the project in a positive way? Let's keep in mind that ours is a heavily smart-growth ANC, and most of the commissioners shared some of our key concerns. We have also advocated for other things that squarely align with a smart growth agenda (keep in mind, I am like many of my neighbors in that I take the Metro to work every day, and very intentionally chose to move to a walkable urban village, which I would like to see further improved). So, I ask that you actually look at me, not past me. Talk to us, and work with us, to create a great project, and not put us into a neat little box that causes people to work against each other, and thus delay a solution that would work for everyone. I am very serious when I say, if you want a great project, let's work together. Give me a call -- I'm the only Rubinson in the DC phonebook.

by Adam Rubinson on Apr 13, 2012 12:25 pm • link • report

Does requesting a new 150-unit building on the same lot (not across the street, but sharing the same piece of land) as our townhomes -- sound unreasonable, smart-growth killing, and ideologically NIMBY?

If the original proposal had called for 150 units, would you have been ok with that, or would you have tried to bargain them down to 100 or 125?

by JustMe on Apr 13, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report

Small difference? Sounds like a 25% reduction in the number of units. That's a big difference.

by Alex B. on Apr 13, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

As noted above, this project was first five stories with over two hundred units. At the urging of Beverly Sklover and the immediate neighbors, Safeway reduced the height of this building by an entire floor. Now neighbors want to reduce it further to 150 units. After then, how many units will they press Safeway to cut off their building? Admittedly, neighbors have some valid issues with design and impact but when ANC commissioners and neighbors start to play architect, at some point a development like this ceases to be financially viable.

Reducing this from 190 units to 150 units means dozens of more cars on our street as fewer people will be able to walk to the metro station, it means dirtier air, less vibrant streets, fewer customers for area businesses, and, as noted above, less tax revenue for the District.

Regarding traffic, truck access to the Safeway is a legitimate issue but concerns over parking is simply bogus. This is less than a ten minute walk from two metro stations, is served by several 30s buses almost directly in front of the property, Capital Bikeshare, ZipCar, and according to District Departmetn of Transportation plans, two new Circulator routes by 2020.

The issue of parking is simply a fabricated reason to oppose this. First, people who live within walking distance of metro stations(let alone two stations) own significantly fewer cars than the rest of the population (certainly nothing like Mitt Romney with his car-elevator). Anecdotally, it seems like there is almost always sufficient parking in Tenley. I rode my bike to Friendship Heights on Monday evening at 7 PM (should be a prime hour for residents returning to the neighborhood) and there could hardly be more on-street parking on 42nd Street. Nevermind, that Safeway and Clark Construction have committed to providing abundant parking at this site.

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

@No Nimby: As I've said, you could probably count the number of people with school-age children who would choose to live in a one or two bedroom condo (especially when there are many signle-family homes in the neighborhood) on one hand.

Are these single-family homes for sale for $300,000? Or even $500-700,000?

I think it would be more useful to provide real actual specific numbers (for example, how many families with children of current or near-future school age actually do live in the Cityline development?), rather than hand-waving about "Families with school-age children are far more likely to live in single-family homes."

As Tom M says, this is not an argument for stopping development. It is an argument for acknowledging and assessing potential effects on schools.

by Miriam on Apr 13, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

@Justme -I think Rubinsons comment was sincere. He said it was about adjusting the design to allow sunlight exposure for existing homes. I think your comment is a bit disrespectful given what I percieved as a sincere comment with a legitimate concern from Rubinson, who is making an effort to reach out for respectful dialogue.

by Tina on Apr 13, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report

Yes, there are quite a few 2 and 3 bedroom homes for sale for less than $700,000 in Tenley. Urban Turf had a profile on the neighborhood last year:

"Tenleytown homes have traditionally been slightly less expensive than those in surrounding neighborhoods, but the prices can’t be described as bargains: three-bedroom listings are currently selling for between $650,000 and $880,000, and four-bedrooms range from $635,000 to $1,255,000, according to Kennedy."

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/tenleytown_not_quite_like_its_neighbors/3127

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

He said it was about adjusting the design to allow sunlight exposure for existing homes. I think your comment is a bit disrespectful given what I percieved as a sincere comment with a legitimate concern from Rubinson, who is making an effort to reach out for respectful dialogue.

Well, I asked an honest question. Would there have been any number of units that he would have felt was "just fine", or was negotiating it down the overall point and the goal was to make it as small as he could negotiate?

by JustMe on Apr 13, 2012 1:00 pm • link • report

@miriam

its certainly worthwhile for DC to look at a policy for educational proffers like most of the suburban jurisdictions have. but given that DC has no such policy now (I didnt know that, but someone upthread said it) it seems unfair to single out this one project to object to for that reason, and it seems silly to think that the number of kids from it would be so high as to make it financially a net negative for DC. I dont have data on the number of school kids in any particular development in DC, but I would be flabbergasted if it was 25 or higher in a 195 unit building of mostly 1br units and some 2BR units. And given the prices well over 300k of some units, it would probably pay for well over 25 kids.

as for the SFH sales prices, I am pretty sure there are SFH houses for sale under 700 k in close in parts of MoCo and in north arlington in areas with at least as good schools. Even cheaper for someone open to a town house. Especially a 2 bedroom TH.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 13, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

Many earlier commenters have cited the example of the Cleveland Park Giant. I have sympathy with the possible decline of light for a neighboring house (although Safeway and Torti Gallas have taken steps to minimize this) but, as with the Giant, it is absolutely ridiculous that one neighbor or a small handful of neighbors could potentially hold up a development for years that would otherwise clearly benfit the neighborhood and provide great benefits to DC.

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report

To: JUST ME

You do understand that WMATA did not build METRO...American taxpayers did. By what authority would they ever dictate closing a Metro Station due to citizen opposition to development in their area. None of these METRO stations were originally built to promote density. They were to move people from established neighborhoods to the core of the city. It would be the height of arrogance for any agency to close down a METRO station in some childish power play. If the residents of that area DO NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT that is their right if they prevail.

by Pelham1861 on Apr 13, 2012 1:27 pm • link • report

"None of these METRO stations were originally built to promote density."

Actually I think Arlington was planning for density at least from the time the Orange line was actually built (though of course it was planned much earlier) I suppose not the district (except of course for the New York Avenue station).

"If the residents of that area DO NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT that is their right"

I dont think DC zoning law actually works that way.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 13, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report

They were to move people from established neighborhoods to the core of the city. It would be the height of arrogance for any agency to close down a METRO station in some childish power play.

Yes to both. And sometimes that sort of thing is necessary.

The metro is extremely expensive, and stations in sparse, suburban neighborhoods are just a sinkhole of subsidies. I do think that WMATA should have some sort of greater zoning power in a 1/8th to 1/4th of a mile radius around the station to encourage effective use of the metro system.

by JustMe on Apr 13, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report

Well I fully expect this project to face the same problems that plagued the Cathedral Commons development. I could see a bunch of [deleted for violating the comment policy] neighbors [deleted] and trying to derail the project. It is amazing that their counterparts down in Cleveland Park were able to almost derail the Giant project and waste more than a decade doing so. I'm frankly surprised that Giant just didn't give up, say the "h#ll with it", and abandon the store.

That whole block on Wisconsin Avenue has been a blight on what otherwise is a great neighborhood for more than a decade now. I remember moving into that area in 2000 and reading the proposals for the new Giant and how that ANC down there was constantly trying to derail it. I'm still amazed that it is 2012 and they are only now starting the project.

by Rain17 on Apr 13, 2012 1:34 pm • link • report

I think one of the main reasons for the Silver line is specifically to encourage new development at Tysons and the Dulles corridor.

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity -- I do agree about not singling out this one project.

But in general I have a problem with the "people with school-age children won't live here!" hand-waving, in Montgomery County as well as in DC.

If urban-walkable-sustainable is really an attractive way to live (which I think it is), then it will also attract people with school-age children.

And if the people with school-age children can't afford to live in these areas in the single-family houses everybody says they will live in, then they will live there in two-bedroom or one-bedroom apartments.

And the more attractive urban-walkable-sustainable areas become, over time, the more true this will be.

I really would like to see some real actual data on the contribution of X development on local public school enrollment. But that's not the point of this post, so I will shut up now.

by Miriam on Apr 13, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

Pelham1861:
"None of these METRO stations were originally built to promote density."

The New York Avenue station, a public/private partnership was specifically built to encourage more economic development and infill growth.

by No Nimby on Apr 13, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report

I can't speak for the commentariat, but as one of the authors of the post, I would like to note that we did not label the ANC or anyone else as NIMBY. To the contrary, the ANC has been open to working with Safeway, not to stop the project, but to find a best fit for its neighborhood context, and that is commendable. In this case, though, it appears that a good result has been reached and the current round of complaints are unwarranted. Specific to the questions raised, we believe 190 units is a bit low, but about right, for this site and that the massing would not be 'improved' by reducing the number. 190 units close to Metro is unlikely to have much of a traffic impact (and the difference between 190 and 150 units would be pretty much insignificant.) Torti Gallas has done numerous shadow studies at various times of the year, which demonstrated that there would be little impact on adjacent houses to the west.

We believe the further 'tweaking' (assuming that means reductions in unit count and height) is not 'positive' and would not improve the project. What we have is light-years better than a matter-of-right surface parking lot (with maybe a few dumpsters and open loading docks) or a blank stucco rear wall of a grocery store. What is proposed is a nice-looking building with no backside, just multiple attractive front facades creating a village-like residential character adjacent to the existing homes. Whats the problem with that?

by Ron Eichner on Apr 13, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report

Number of children in DC was about 102300 in 2010, or 17% of the population. The fraction is higher in lower cost wards (7 & 8), which is not surprising considering the financial pressures to raise a family. Base on that I estimate that there should be around 32 school-age children in a 190 unit condo development.

by goldfish on Apr 13, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

@miriam

Urban/sustainable/walkable comes in many flavors, and for many families will include townhouses and sfh's on small lots, often located somewhat further out. Or in 3BR apartments in places where those exist and are more affordable. (right now, BTW, there new THs in a walkable new community right next to the Vienna metro station selling for the low 500s, and there are 3 br condos coming there selling from the low 400s)

I dont think its reasonable to expect every building that is urban/walkable to appeal to families in the same way. This is a hirise with 1 and 2 br units. And even then no one is saying there will be NO school age children, just not that many.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 13, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

"None of these METRO stations were originally built to promote density."

Right. That's why they only designed the system to run with the initial 4-car trains, because nothing would ever change! And even though we spent a bunch of cash on Metro, the downtown DC office core looks exactly the same as it did in 1970!

Oh wait.

Also, they put Rosslyn-Ballston underground (rather than in the 66 median) specifically so that development could happen along that corridor.

by MLD on Apr 13, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

So I won't shut up now after all...

@AWalkerInTheCity -- what I am saying is:

1. urban/sustainable/walkable areas are not fungible (for example, Tenleytown is not Vienna)
2. even "the low 400s" for a three-bedroom apartment is still a lot of money for many people who have children and want to live in urban/sustainable/walkable areas
3. how many children is "not that many"?

If my children were in a school that was already overcrowded, my reaction to a proposed development would be different if I were told, "Oh, don't worry, there won't be that many children who live in this development, because families want to live in single-family houses!" than if I were told, "Based on actual data from comparable developments X, Y, and Z, in Areas A, B, and C, we project that this development will contribute [this many] children to the enrollment, and here is what we plan to do about it."

by Miriam on Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report

can't Deale and Janney solve their overcrowding issue by closing the schools to out of boundary enrollees? Pretty certain over crowding is a city wide problem, not just in Janney and Deale. In fact 2 teachers/45 students sounds a lot better then the 1 teacher/33 students situation I'm aware of at a school that isn't "sought after" the way Janney is...

by Tina on Apr 13, 2012 2:43 pm • link • report

Nice piece. Very helpful. Let's go testify in support.

by ccort on Apr 13, 2012 2:44 pm • link • report

@Miriam The basis for your objections to this project are, as best I can tell, that the small number of children who MAY reside there will further the overcrowding of local schools? Sorry, I don't buy it. First of all, as others have suggested, it just isn't the type of building that will have a lo of children of school age living in it. I can see couple with infants living there, but moving to larger quarters as the children near school age. I seriously, seriously doubt very many parents of middle and high school-age children will live there!
Secondly, whether the project be 190 units, or (foolishly, IMHO) reduced to 150 units, the difference if potential children residing there are very small. Third of all, even if a few NEARBY schools are fully enrolled with students, overall the DC public school system is losing students as we speak, and many many schools around the District are half empty. The "problem" you fear so much could easily be avoided by sending some of the kids at the edges of the school boundaries to the emptier schools to the south and east.
In my opinion, this worry of school crowding based on one condo or rental building with a modest number of units is way overblown, a total non-issue. Keep in mind that at its high point, DC had over 800,000 residents! We're nowhere near that today, and those of us who lives here when DC's population was at a low point due to crime, poverty, etc simply have to get used to things getting a little crowded again. Really, it's a good thing! We can always build more schools if needed.

by MrTinDC on Apr 13, 2012 2:55 pm • link • report

Tina, overcrowding is a problem in the *good* schools. The other ones, not so much.

by goldfish on Apr 13, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

@goldfish, I happen to have personal direct experience with a non "good" school in which an elemnetary clasroom has 33 students and 1 teacher. Same with a "sought after" HS in which teacher has class of >35 students. Maybe some people, or officially, between 33 and 40 students is not considered "overcrowding". I sure wouldn't want to be the teacher of those classes or parent of a student in those classes (even though the teachers are great). I really doubt my personal experience is unique. In the schools to which I'm referrencing these classroom situations (>30 students/teacher) the situation is not unique.

by Tina on Apr 13, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report

@MrTinDC, I don't have any specific objections to this project at all! What I object to, as I explained above, is vague generalizations about families with children choosing to live in single-family houses, vs. data-based projections and specific plans. What I also object to is your opinion that the effect of development on school enrollment isn't an issue.

by Miriam on Apr 13, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report

@Tina: There are two kinds of overcrowding: (1) one in which there are too many kids in the class, and (2) one in which there are too many kids in the school. If first kind leads to bad student performance, that school will become under-enrolled.

by goldfish on Apr 13, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report

@miriam

A.I am not sure they arent fungible to a considerable degree. I know lots of people who compare such things across jurisdictions and even across widely seperated locales. Im not saying there arent some people who MUST live in Tenleytown - Im just taking issue with your assertion that growth in demand by families for urban walkable means that dismissing demand by families in a particular is wrong. Of course it would be better to have data, but in its absence, we do what we can

B. if they cant afford the low 400s, how will they be able to afford the 700k 2brs in this building (I havent looked but I doubt all the 1brs are 300 - usually in buildings like that even 1brs range in price depending on size, layout, and floor)

C. How many? Since what we were discussing was financial impact, I would say enough to bring into question the net financial contributions of the project.someone said this will generate 380k a year in property taxes, but that assumed all units are 300k, which seems to be incorrect. So lets adjust to 500k in revenue. At 100k for a teacher, and adding 100k for classrooms, overhead and misc, one class would cost 200k. I will assume 25 kids per class. So if we have 25 kids, thats 200k for education, which leaves 300k left over for all other services, and that doesnt include income tax revenue. I think 25 schools kids would leave this a large net financial positive. out of 190 units, 25 seems like a fair amount, given that no units are bigger than 2BR, most are 1br, and it will appeal to singles, childless, empty nesters, and just maybe, folks who use private schools.

I certainly agree that planning for what to do with the kids is a good thing. I was just addressing the financing issue however.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 13, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

Don't live in Tenley - live in SW, where we have our own development going on. But have to say, as I think most commenters would agree, that the stretch of Wisconsin Ave that this development would go into is one of the ugliest stretches of road in DC - don't know why anyone would want to live in the neighborhood surrounding it.

And if this development shares the same fate as Cityline, it'll be scaled back by neighbors to too small a size.

Thanks

by Paul on Apr 13, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report

First of all, I think the Tenley Safeway project is a good one and Safeway is to be commended for its open dialogue, decent design and willingness to make some compromises which will hopefuly result in the project moving foward. Some have mentioned Cathedral Commons (Giant), also on Wisconsin Ave., which is pretty ironic because Giant was successful in totally jamming that project through the agencies, with no changes whatsoever -- including putting a truck loading area in a residential (R) zone, next to some poor guy's house. They didn't even enclose the ramp like Safeway has done here. Had Giant made a few changes, they would have had more local support and could have started building sooner. But then Safeway's approach seems more in keeping with their stores -- open, clean, quality. Giant, well, not so much.

The other thing that's interesting is the argument in response to the person who raised the question of possible overcrowding at nearby Janney School: that, don't worry, hardly any families would live in the Safeway project. Again, I think this is a good project, but it kind of exposes the "Smart Growth" fallacy, that there should be all this extra density in DC to save some cornfields in Germantown. In fact, most of the new DC projects are geared toward younger residents (now called hipsters, formerly yuppies) who probably would have no interst in living in the exurbs. It seems that very few, if any, new projects are designed for families in DC -- just the type who often must turn to outer suburban living for an affordable house near a good school.

by Sam on Apr 13, 2012 4:38 pm • link • report

Sam--Well what seems to be going on is that DC has pretty much given up on attracting families. Realizing that the schools are in such horrible shape they seem focused on attracting professionals in their 20s and 30s who want to live in the city--and not in the suburbs. Their targets are young professionals in their 20s and 30s who make good money and want to live in the city. They aren't targeting families.

I'm 33 now. I plan on living in DC the rest of my life, though I also don't plan on having children. But I've seen how many of my coworkers, friends, and acquaintances leave DC for the suburbs once they have children and have to start to worry about the quality of school systems. Unless they're wealthy and can afford the various private schools (i.e, Georgetown Prep, Georgetown Day, Landon, etc), they move to Fairfax or Montgomery Counties. They have no desire to deal with DCPS.

So I think DC has privately come to accept the fact that DCPS will never be able to attract the children of middle class parents or wealthy families. So their target market seems to young professionals and married couples without children.

For these reasons I agree that most, if not all, of the new residential developments are unlikely attract families. That's why I expect the number of children to fall in most parts of the city in the coming years, save for maybe Wards 7 and 8.

by Rain17 on Apr 13, 2012 5:43 pm • link • report

"Had Giant made a few changes, they would have had more local support and could have started building sooner."

--------------------------------------------------------------
I lived near AU until mid-2009. I remember the debates that went on for the better part of a decade. I really don't think anything would have satisfied those neighbors who kept complaining. I'm really surprised that Giant just didn't say the "h#ll with it". Ever since GC Murphy and that Chinese restaurant left that block has been an eyesore. I'm glad that the Cathedral Commons project has finally broken ground.

by Rain17 on Apr 13, 2012 5:47 pm • link • report

Adding to that thought, one of the main Giant opponents posted on the local listserv last summer that if only the north structure was limited to three stories, it could be supported. The irony there of course is that the original proposal was for 1 and two stories, and that was vigorously opposed.

by William on Apr 13, 2012 7:33 pm • link • report

William, no matter what Giant did, those neighbors would have opposed it. I'm just surprised that Giant just didn't give it up when it was clear it was going to take a decade for the project to break ground.

by Rain17 on Apr 13, 2012 8:32 pm • link • report

@ Pelham1861:

There's an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance here.

You do understand that WMATA did not build METRO...American taxpayers did.

Do you realize that WMATA is a collection of American taxpayers? What dollars of theirs are not taxes?

None of these METRO stations were originally built to promote density.

But the stations are here now. Who cares why they were originally built?

If the residents of that area DO NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT that is their right if they prevail.

Why should the desires of the residents who oppose development take precedence over the desires of those who support development?

by WRD on Apr 13, 2012 8:52 pm • link • report

I don't understand how trucks entering from Davenport is safe. That is GDS' main entrance. They need to sort out the WMATA 'bunker', that corner is where the pedestrian entry should be, near the Wisconsin Ave. bus stop. Trucks should enter from 42nd Street, cars maybe from Davenport.

by LouDC on Apr 14, 2012 9:00 am • link • report

Tom M./Miriam -- there are some of us who believe that there should be impact fees assessed on development. We raised the general point in the context of the ANC4B report on the Walmart "proposed" for Georgia Ave. (http://www.anc4b.info/LTR_Report_Final_2011_5_23.pdf)

I didn't talk to her about it, but someone else did... CM Bowser (and presumably other Councilmembers) see not having impact fees as a competitive advantage for DC vis-a-vis Montgomery County especially. I argue that people want to build/locate in DC for a reason, and that DC shouldn't undersell its value.

(Although I do agree that it is "unfair" to put that kind of discussion on a particular development, as it is a general issue. E.g., wrt Walmart and GA Ave., many people thought that Walmart should have to pay for fixing the GA-MO intersection and the reality is that while with impact fees they'd have had to pay into it, they didn't create the problem, and it's unreasonable to expect one development to pay tens of millions of dollars to fix something that should have been fixed decades ago.)

That being said, we do need better analytical tools for understanding the impact of development. I have mentioned needing better tools for understanding the comparative revenue value of different types of development. It's mentioned in the above-cited ANC report as well as here: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/ (I didn't write it but it's about the same topic, work that I've cited previously).

The same goes for student load. This kind of development isn't likely to generate students and would have a different kind of impact fee assessed for K-12 ed. compared to rowhouses (which can and are being built elsewhere in the city).

WRT educational options east of the park, sadly the charter schools are creaming off most of the children of young couples. My block has 8 school aged (including preK) children, while 1 goes to a private program, I think the rest are in charters. We live 3 blocks from a public school. (Although Capital City Charter School is opening a combined campus about 1-2 blocks away and that will likely increase the neighborhood's attractiveness to families with school aged children.)

Tina -- I haven't been in a DCPS classroom for about 8 years, but I was a lot in the earlier part of last decade and I was always amazed that the class sizes were so small, smaller than 20 students. This was in the H St. neighborhood. That was an indicator of under-enrollment of major proportions.

by Richard Layman on Apr 15, 2012 7:55 am • link • report

@LouDC

I believe having the truck access on Davenport was one of the requests by the residents around the site (Ellicot Street?). This was one of the many accommodations Safeway has made to those residents.

by William on Apr 15, 2012 8:19 am • link • report

I don't think this really has anything to do with the post, but I think many people are years behind in their thinking about children in the District. I am fairly certain that more than 1/2 of the children in my kid's charter school live in condos/apartments with two or fewer bedrooms. Many could actually afford bigger stand-alone places, but choose not to. I know that we do not ever want to move out of a condo, as it is the easiest and most maintenance-free way of having a full and busy walkable lifestyle with lots of travel.

by Danielle on Apr 15, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report

@Danielle -- interestingly... at the City Living Expo in 2003, I talked with 100-200 people while representing the H Street neighborhood, and I found that interest in condos was what people call "bookended" -- the younger (which surprised me) and the older. (I was first exposed to this concept in a presentation about interest in cities earlier that year by Jim Peters of the Responsibility Hospitality Institute.)

(Relatedly, I am about to write a post about "bigger households" in the future maybe as a function of changing economic circumstances.)

by Richard Layman on Apr 15, 2012 3:22 pm • link • report

This city is much different now than it was in 2003. I never would have believed that this would be a possibility then.

by Danielle on Apr 15, 2012 9:16 pm • link • report

In 2004 probably, I was on the ANC6C Planning and Zoning Commission, and one of the matters before us had to do with one of those run down used car sales thingys that was at the northwest corner of 4th St. and Massachusetts Ave. NW. People on the committee were hung up on landscaping and grass. I commented that in "the long run" that site would be redeveloped.

Who knew... that so soon it would be redeveloped into two "condominium" buildings--because of the condos across the street, plus the apartments across from the GAO by Pritzker.

But that the developer would lose the buildings to foreclosure, and they are now owned by Equity Residential and have close to 100% occupancy.

That's just one little project.

But yes, I say that activists had no idea what forces would be unleashed once Marion Barry was no longer mayor.

Too bad that the kinds of planning systems, plans, and regulations that needed to be in place to deal with the velocity of change that was coming weren't (and mostly still aren't) in place before the changes speeded up significantly.

by Richard Layman on Apr 15, 2012 9:45 pm • link • report

Do people have no sense of decency when it comes to irony? Why is it there are always people clamoring about over-development and changing-the-character-of-the-neighbhorhood, whenever there is a high-density project proposed for a Metro stop? It's just sheer hypocrisy to steal Indian land and develop your pretty little house on it and then expect time to stand still for everyone else just to conform to YOUR sense of what development should be.

It reminds me of that short story where a stranger comes with a box and says anything you wish for will appear in the box. But if you open it and take it, then someone that you don't know will die, and the stranger will return for the box. Otherwise you can keep the closed box forever. After some moral angst the protagonist finally decides to open the box and take the million dollars he wished for. The stranger then comes back for the box and when the protaganist asks him where he is going, he replies -- "to someone you don't know".

by Xandersun on Apr 17, 2012 4:38 pm • link • report