FoBo? Are you kidding me? No. Just no.

What's next, FaWe? MeCe? NoFlo?

by nick on May 17, 2012 9:08 am • link • report

Everything is defintiely lining up to indicate that Bike to Work Day tomorrow is going to be ginormous, epic. Be there so you can tell the grandkids.

by Crickey7 on May 17, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

"A clothing store on 14th Street is closing. Only restaurants want to move in, but zoning restricts new restaurants, so the owner can't find anyone to take over the space."

yeah, right. There's a buyer for anything at the right price. What the owner is really saying is 'I can rent out my space for more to a restaurant than I can for neighborhood serving retail, so please let me do so'.

The problem of course is that this squeezes out the other businesses we need to shop in the neighborhood. For example, the wonderful Lankershire Farms place across the street from here which makes available fresh produce and meats from Pennsylvanian farms. Bars and restaurants (especially the bar part) have a much higher profit margin than other types of retail and are as such able to pay much more for rent. Given complete free reign to do so, our experience in the District has been for them to eventually overwhelm the other types of retail and create in the place of a 'neighborhood serving retail' environment, a destination bar row. e.g., 18th Street in Adams-Morgan, and slowly but surely, U Street east of 14th ...

by Lance on May 17, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

@Lance

Well, you could always add to the supply of retail space (and thereby driving down rents) by allowing retail uses in more areas of the city...

by Alex B. on May 17, 2012 9:29 am • link • report

@nick the odd little spot where my condo sits seems to have no name so my wife and I have taken to calling it NoGlo (North of Glover Park) for fun. I would appreciate it everyone started repeating it and it caught on. :)

by rdhd on May 17, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

An interesting idea to use the zoning code rewrite to create individual neighborhood overlays to ensure new housing stock is consistent with existing housing stock.

I am not sure how I feel about that. Certainly for areas which are historic, or are historic districts, it makes sense for new construction to be compatible, but for areas that are not historic, I am not sure it makes sense to tie new construction to the existing fabric. Look at areas in far NW, where there are a lot of 1960's split level houses. Do we want the zoning code to codify this type of housing, when someone may want to rebuild into a more traditional type of DC house?

I think I am tending towards the idea that either a neighborhood is "historic" or else the zoning is what it is, without any sort of design review. You can't have it both ways.

by William on May 17, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

@rdhd: A guy I met at the Red Derby referred to his part of Pleasant Plains north of HU as NoHow. I'm on a mission to make that one stick.

by JS on May 17, 2012 9:54 am • link • report

or mistrust the white members of their board.

Yet another example of Lydia's utter cluelessness and subpar reporting.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 9:56 am • link • report

@RDHD: Shouldn't that be "NoGloP"? Now, that's memorable!

by 17th Street on May 17, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

@Hogwash

Yet another example of Lydia's utter cluelessness and subpar reporting.

Did you read the article in question?

From the piece:

Adding to the confused atmosphere, some people in the majority-black association suspected that the developer was colluding with the association’s president, a white man named David Levey. A speechwriter, Levey bought his unit for $425,000 in 2010 and completely renovated it.

“They just took an unfair approach to him and whoever was white on the board,” says Dale Young, an African-American who owns a unit on 11th Street and wanted to take the deal. “They said things like, he was in it to take peoples’ property.”

What's sub-par about this reporting? Perhaps you should be talking to Mr. Young about his utter cluelessness instead.

by Alex B. on May 17, 2012 10:07 am • link • report

"yeah, right. There's a buyer for anything at the right price. What the owner is really saying is 'I can rent out my space for more to a restaurant than I can for neighborhood serving retail, so please let me do so'"

You are automatically assuming that the person can actually lower his rental basis and still survive.

That is true for anyone who has owned that commercial space for say...more than 7 or 8 years when the cost to buy it was significantly lower.

But anyone who paid top dollar for it understandbly needs the associated rents to make the deal work.

Or we could just end up with empty storefronts, people going into bankruptcy, lower sales tax collections, property tax collections etc...and in the end, whomever buys the property at a firesale price isn't going to put "insert preferred blogger commercial tenant here" anyway.

by rents on May 17, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

Thank you for biking tomorrow. It will hopefully make my numerous appointments easier to drive to.

by movement on May 17, 2012 10:37 am • link • report

movement: And that's exactly the point! This is why all people who drive should be really excited about getting more people to bike, not just on Bike To Work Day but all the time.

by David Alpert on May 17, 2012 10:38 am • link • report

First the 14th & U bar limit was 25%, then 50%, now they want to make one block 100%. All disguised as ""urbanism"".

What a charade.

by Tom Coumaris on May 17, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

"Or we could just end up with empty storefronts, people going into bankruptcy, lower sales tax collections, property tax collections etc...and in the end, whomever buys the property at a firesale price isn't going to put "insert preferred blogger commercial tenant here" anyway."

well they won't of the demand is for bars, but it if it wasnt they COULD put other retail in. Whether to limit bars as a policy is another question. As Alex says, you could try adding more retail to drive down commercial rents.

I think also it would be better if there were more nightlife spots in the suburbs, and more residential density in the city areas. Right now you have lots of employment drawing 20somethings in the burbs, esp the techway, and little nightlife (other than RBC corridor) it makes more sense to live closer to work - a daily commute, and housing is cheaper anyway - and commute to night life. That means RBC and the DC hotspots are dominated by folks who drink there, but do there other shopping in the suburbs. If there were more drinking in the burbs, and the DC nabes were not the night life spots for the region, they would be more likely to serve neighborhood residents, esp if there were more of them.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 10:48 am • link • report

Tom: Who's "they"? I think I agree with Lance on this one, and OP would probably defend the 50% rule. So far, one person has asked for an exception and they may or may not get it; I'd put odds that they won't.

by David Alpert on May 17, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

Why is stupid "Bike To Work Day" is always scheduled when I'm working from home?

On a similar point, @David's response to @movement reminded me of a revelation I had riding to work in the rain on Tuesday. Whenever there's the least amount of rain, or God forbid snow, the areas roadways turn into a gridlocked parking lot. Usually people chalk this up to "Washington drivers can't drive in the rain/snow!"

But when it rains, I see about 1/50th of the bike commuters I see on a day without rain. This is just a guess, but my guess is that rain/snow probably depresses Metro ridership as well. With area roads at capacity on the best of days, adding most area bike commuters to the cars on the road, and many of the Metro commuters as well, and the result is Rainmaggeddon.

If area drivers who resent cyclists and transit want to know what a world without cycling/transit would look like, imagine every single commute looking like a bad rain day.

by oboe on May 17, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

Or we could just end up with empty storefronts, people going into bankruptcy, lower sales tax collections, property tax collections etc...and in the end, whomever buys the property at a firesale price isn't going to put "insert preferred blogger commercial tenant here" anyway.

We all presume that the property owner researched what the zoning allowed, and what the rents were for such uses.

by goldfish on May 17, 2012 10:54 am • link • report

@Alex B,

What's sub-par about this reporting? Perhaps you should be talking to Mr. Young about his utter cluelessness instead.

I imagine this has more to do with folks not liking to hear things they don't want to hear than with journalistic standards.

by oboe on May 17, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

i grew up in a coop building in brooklyn, all white, mostly Jewish, quite a few elderly. There were definitely folks there who expected to live there till they died, and had little interest in what others thought was economically rational. I am sure that if unanimity was needed for anything like this, it would have been just as difficult as what Ms De Pillis describes. This being DC, its expressed in racial terms.

My suggestion is that the developer offer a higher premium. Or that everyone wait (till land values increase, and till elderly folks are bought out or die)

by brooklyngebornen on May 17, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

@ Alex B "Well, you could always add to the supply of retail space (and thereby driving down rents) by allowing retail uses in more areas of the city..."

a. There's plenty of commercially zoned space throughtout the city that is currently not being used. I'm sure you've heard of Wards 5 and 8's wanting to attract more grocery stores and other types of retail?

b. The issue here is NEIGHBORHOOD serving retail. I thought the so-called smart growth folks were all for being able to do everything in their own neighborhood ... Or am I hearing that bars and restaurants are all that this smart growth group cares about for now ... oh yeah, that a place to rest your head nearby.

by Lance on May 17, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

Did you read the article in question? What's sub-par about this reporting? Perhaps you should be talking to Mr. Young about his utter cluelessness instead.

Well geez Alex, based on misppropiated clueless claim, I inclined to believe that it's actually you who didn't really digest the article.

Subpar reporting:

Lydia starts of by talking to the black lady whom she obviously found by researching the nearest Mark Twain novel.

She then goes through the various stages of potential acquistions with its last focus on Lafritz Alder whose "black" representative ALSO failed to convince the condo association to sell. She then introduces race and decided it's important for us to know that "some" residents
had issues with Alder colluding with their "white" association's president. As an example of blacks folks "fear/bigotry," she quotes Dale Young. And this is where you got from the story what you wanted to see rather than what was actually on paper.

Based on the story I read, Dale Young, (the black guy you called clueless) WANTED to sell..unlike his neighbors. Lydia offers up Dale's opinion about his neighbors' rejection on race when she quotes him as saying, "They said things like, he was in it to take peoples’ property."

So contrary to what you think, Dale was quoting the "concerns" he'd heard from his neighbors. Nothing in the article suggests that he shared those concerns. Why was Lydia unable to find a quote from one of the actual residents concerned about Alder's colluding with the "white" board member..and instead opted for someone else to characterize their views? I don't know.

So, with all the relevant/good stuff that could've in the article, she chose to introduce race and miserably failed to create a nexus between it and the problems these companies have had in acquiring the properties.

It's similar to the recent GGW piece analyzing college degrees, race and class. The good thing is that DAl decided to not include a Huck Finn reference.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

@rents "But anyone who paid top dollar for it understandbly needs the associated rents to make the deal work."

Shouldn't they have thought of that when they bought the place? Or did they rely on getting this zoning exemption to 'make the deal work'? Hey, I'd like to buy a 2 story house in a historic district and tear it down to build a too-tall building in its place 'to make the deal work' ... and pull out lots of $s ... but that's not how things work.

by Lance on May 17, 2012 11:16 am • link • report

They said things like, he was in it to take peoples’ property."

It's worth mentioning that the "white" association president who offered to buy Dale Young's property as well as several others. So it's not a stretch to think someone would look at this sideways.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 11:18 am • link • report

@movement "Thank you for biking tomorrow. It will hopefully make my numerous appointments easier to drive to."

Have you been on the District's streets and roads when a bunch of novice bikers decide to 'do the right thing'? Red light and stop light running is rampant. Add into that sidewalk cruising and 'wrong way on a one way street' riding, and you have mayhem. You better double the time you thought it would take to get to your appointments!

by Lance on May 17, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

I imagine this has more to do with folks not liking to hear things they don't want to hear than with journalistic standards.

And I imagine that like Alex, you read what you wanted to see.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

@oboe
Your partly right but I don't think it is all due to increased driving. The other part is that we grow accustomed to the traffic patterns of our daily commute and even the minor adjustments that keep things on track when things are slightly off. In bad weather, there are more accidents and more of people just driving excessively cautiously. It doesn't take much to turn full volume into full gridlock.

by movement on May 17, 2012 11:20 am • link • report

That is true for anyone who has owned that commercial space for say...more than 7 or 8 years when the cost to buy it was significantly lower.

But anyone who paid top dollar for it understandbly needs the associated rents to make the deal work.

If he paid top dollar for it, it was probably with the assumption built in that he could rent it out at rates only restaurants and bars would be willing to pay.

That said, places like rue 14 can't be replaced by bars/restaurants because it's a 2nd-floor retail establishment. Possibly that's the solution, here-- foster non-street-level retail that is incompatible with bars/restaurants.

I'm not sure there's much of a customer base for down-market clothes on 14th Street and U. Besides, we have Marshall's in Columbia Heights for that.

by JustMe on May 17, 2012 11:26 am • link • report

@Hogwash

I didn't call Mr Young clueless, I just used your choice of phrase. You attributed Young's judgement to DePillis, when Young's direct quote is right there. Lydia didn't 'introduce' that fact herself, she has a direct quote from a guy saying it, straight up! If you're asserting that Lydia is clueless for making that assumption, then why aren't you taking Mr. Young to task for being clueless as well? He's the one who actually said it.

So, with all the relevant/good stuff that could've in the article, she chose to introduce race and miserably failed to create a nexus between it and the problems these companies have had in acquiring the properties.

How did she introduce race? By quoting a guy who said something about race?

If so, why don't you look at his opinion of things?

by Alex B. on May 17, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

The 14th & S parcel will be assembled the same way other commercial parcels are, piece-by-piece. There are realty people who thrive on assembling parcels.

It may even become several parcels. Of course there's more money in assembling a big block-long parcel but with this many property owners it's unrealistic.

The only color involved here is green.

by Tom Coumaris on May 17, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

“These people are trying to force us out of here. That’s just my opinion,” she says. “If it can be convenient for everybody else, why can’t it be convenient for me?”

Leaving race out of it - like brooklyngebornen and HogWash, I think that's a sideshow here - it's tough to argue with this point of view. An elderly retiree has lived here for decades, and now that the area has improved by leaps and bounds, why should she leave? If she doesn't need or want the money, she has every right to stay. I'd be frustrated if I were a co-owner who wanted to cash in, but she needs to do what is best for her, not me. We (ok, I) often repeat the mantra that gentrification isn't about forcing people out, but natural market appreciation as a neighborhood improves. Well, this is the flip side of it - she doesn't want to move (for whatever reason), so why should she?

by dcd on May 17, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

"Well, this is the flip side of it - she doesn't want to move (for whatever reason), so why should she?"

she has the legal right cause of the way the condo bylaws are written. Had they been written to allow, say, an 80% majority to decide to sell, she would not have that right. Im all for legal rights, and I dont think Ms DePillis or anyone here has argued for denying them - but its certainly understandable that the other residents get pissed, and its interesting to see the issues that are raised.

I just want to clarify that while I think this is explicable in terms other than race, I found Ms DePillis' reporting interesting and useful and far from clueless.

by brookyngebornen on May 17, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

Why is stupid "Bike To Work Day" is always scheduled when I'm working from home?

Because bike to work day is always on a Friday, which is the day most likely to be people's flex-day off from work or day they telecommute. Bike to work day should be on Thursday which is typically the day with the worst traffic.

Also, I agree with Lance (on the 14th ST issue). I don't get to write that often. Commercial areas in residential neighborhoods like 14th ST should be optimized for their residents. That means diverse retail rather than "most profitable use" of commercial space. That may decrease commercial property values but will increase residential values commensurately and be better for the city overall.

The reason bars/restaurants are such profitable uses is that they externalize many of their costs (traffic, noise, crime), not because they are intrinsically the best use. On the hand, a use such as a garden store seems less valuable because it doesn't capture its positive externalities (people in the neighborhood maintain their gardens better because its convenient to do so).

by Falls Church on May 17, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report

Love the piece on CityCenterDC. Reminds me of a recent piece on the proposal to build a 'reverse' skyscraper under the Zocalo in the center of Mexico City. It's a creative use of space that wouldn't be maximally utilized otherwise.

The section about the height limit got me thinking. The law could eb tweaked wtihout changing the street-level feel. THe ratio building height to street/avenue width could be maintained with respect to the core of any building, at the current heights. If additional floors were required to be recessed, may be even progressively so, added density could be achieved without creating the vertical canyons that mark downtowns filled with skyscrapers.

by Fischy (Ed F.) on May 17, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

If she lived there for 20 years, she probably paid no more than 120k for it and probably is close to having it paid off. An offer of $1+M would get her something really nice nearby.

by NikolasM on May 17, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

So once I was dragged into playing Monopoly with my kid and his friends. "pokemonopoly" unfortunately (the things we do for love). One kid had a property that it made perfect sense to trade with me, mutually benefiical, yada yada. "but i LIKE this Pokemon" "er, kid, thats not how the game is played" well, granted, it was a kid, and it was just a game, and it WAS Pokemon.

You're a moderately paid person, you have a condo you bought for 150k thats almost paid off, and someone is offering you 750k for it. your friggin ship has come in. A lifetime of financial mistakes is now about to not matter. You can retire in style - its so close you can taste it.

Then your neighbor says "Well, I LIKE living here - sure I could move down the block, but that would be a hassle." Worse if they actually say something like "I'm saying no, cause I don't trust that yuppie dude".

When the blood pressure rises, and the guy who wants to sell has a stroke, we ALL pay for the increase in health care costs.

by brooklyngebornen on May 17, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report

@JustMe: "That said, places like rue 14 can't be replaced by bars/restaurants because it's a 2nd-floor retail establishment."

Why not? Offhand, I can think of at least three bar/restaurants currently operating in 2nd-floor spaces in regular street-fronting neighborhood commercial buildings in DC (one of them even calls itself "New Heights").

by A Streeter on May 17, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

The plans for the Silver Line station at Dulles are actually pretty cool. It looks like an echo of the Saarinen terminal.

by Mike on May 17, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report

I didn't call Mr Young clueless, I just used your choice of phrase. How did she introduce race? By quoting a guy who said something about race? If so, why don't you look at his opinion of things?

Ok, so you used my choice word to describe what you consider Young's "cluelessness." What "should" I have thought clueless about his quote? This wasn't Young's article...it was Lydia's. She made the decision to highlight race. So I'm not sure how you're suggesting that she didn't bring up race when she both "reported" on how some blacks members didn't like the fact that the firms were "COLLUDING" with it's WHITE president...and...used as an example, the quote of someone characterizing their positions as race-based.

Why am I not looking at Young's opinion? I am but wonder whether his characterization of his neighbors' positions warrant mention in her article.

BTW, I think Lydia is clueless as it relates to race and her characterizations of such matters are usually substandard and in some instances laughable. Much like this article.

This is just what I be thinking as I set here at work. But as I look outside, the streets be filled like a lil' Times Square - it be very nice. Lordy B! De troubles of de world.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

Then your neighbor says "Well, I LIKE living here - sure I could move down the block, but that would be a hassle." Worse if they actually say something like "I'm saying no, cause I don't trust that yuppie dude".

Well, that's a problem with the bylaws that will ultimately cause these problems.

Wasn't there some guy who refused to sell his small building over in NoMa, demanding something like $10 million and a hand in the architectural design, until the developers figured that for that price, it was cheaper to build around him?

by JustMe on May 17, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

@Mike
I am glad I am not the only one that hold that opinion.

by Sand Box John on May 17, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

I guess - seems there was something in baltimore like that. But then its just a developer putting in an odd shaped building, thats amusing cause you can see visually what must have happened.

When its some dude who's seeing his chance to reverse life's fortunes slip away - well that gets to me more. Its like some novel or Greek tragedy where hope is dangled and slips away.

"Sorry dear, forget what I said, we will have to be very frugal in our golden years, like we thought before, cause our dear neighbor Tom can't part with his old place"

by Brooklyngebornen on May 17, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

You're a moderately paid person, you have a condo you bought for 150k thats almost paid off, and someone is offering you 750k for it. your friggin ship has come in. A lifetime of financial mistakes is now about to not matter. You can retire in style - its so close you can taste it.

This seems to ignore the mandate of this blog, namely that in the long run, it is cheaper to live in the city - and then everyone lists the extra costs that are saved, namely transportation. Why would this not be true in reverse? Let's just *say* this fellow/woman has family close by, either to take care of or who is taking care of him or her. Imagine the cost savings right there. You are in effect consigning this person to some cheap exurb somewhere whose life will now become much more inconvenient, but hey, he's made a profit. It's precisely this kind of thinking that so often kills a sense of community.

by Jazzy on May 17, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

@Hogwash wrote:

Lydia starts of by talking to the black lady whom she obviously found by researching the nearest Mark Twain novel.

Also, too...
The good thing is that DAl decided to not include a Huck Finn reference.

For a guy who lays claim to an almost Stephen Colbertian level of color-blindness, your hair-trigger claims of racism seem odd.

by oboe on May 17, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report

Jazzy

You are in effect consigning this person to some cheap exurb somewhere whose life will now become much more inconvenient, but hey, he's made a profit. It's precisely this kind of thinking that so often kills a sense of community.

How?

That person could take the cash, buy a new house/condo across the street (in cash), and pocket the rest while still remaining in the very same neighborhood.

I don't know the specifics of this deal, but I know other similar deals have given bought-out residents right of first refusal at a unit in the new building that would replace their old one - so, they'd have the same location, same neighborhood, but give up their old house - all in exchange for a boatload of cash.

It's certainly an emotional decision, and not one that anyone would take likely. But come on - no one is consigning these folks to the exurbs.

by Alex B. on May 17, 2012 2:19 pm • link • report

@jazzy

most people deciding on closer in vs farther out don't have about 700k in cash coming their way. Heck, as somebody said, they could probably sell and buy a new place a block away and come out with a nest egg. Dont need to move to a cheap exurb to get an old condo for 700k, now do you?

Im all for community, but Im thinking many of the people who are being denied a chance to profit in this case are not exactly people born with a silver spoon in their mouth - they are just the kind of ordinary native Washingtonians who most deserve to benefit from change.

by Brooklyngebornen on May 17, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report

Wow, so last year CaBi hits 1 million almost exactly at their 1 year celebration event. And this year it is exactly during Bike to Work Week.

What a coincidence!!!

by beatbox on May 17, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

For a guy who lays claim to an almost Stephen Colbertian level of color-blindness, your hair-trigger claims of racism seem odd.

Ha! Imagine that. Well consider this, I, like many blacks, often cringe when reporters seek out the "one" black person whose command of the english language leaves a lot to be desired. We are quite sensitive to how we're potrayed in the media. So what's why many of us say, "you got to be kidding me" when we I'm not sure what Lydia being racist has to do w/her decision. I certainly didn't suggest she was. Why do you think I did?

I've stated that she's clueless..not racist. Hence, the Huck Finn reference.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 3:22 pm • link • report

Re people saying she could buy something a block away - how do you figure? Homes are typically a million plus, condos 500k or more. Hardly leaves a whole lot, especially once you pay taxes. Plus she probably doesn't want to live in a condo (and the fees might be much higher). If she doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. I'm glad she appreciates the neighborhood so much and doesn't want to move.

Re RPUS article - I have to strongly disagree. Sounds like the perfect justification for NIMBYism, which is already bad enough. I though we wanted more density in our neighborhoods for increased tax base, increased retail, livability, transit usage etc?

by H Street Landlord on May 17, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report

those are condos, technically. but I guess 3BR ths physically? So no, you probably couldnt get something identical for 700k within a block or two. Maybe a mile away.

I dont mind she wants to stay, but then im not one of the folks who is watching the chance to become an almost millionaire vanish into smoke.

by Brooklyngebornen on May 17, 2012 4:37 pm • link • report

Foggy Bottom - you mean it's finally finished and open after almost a year *and a half* of construction. They started closing off the old escalators and replacing them in January 2011. Those stairs, except for the railings and such, have been finished for two or three months but remained closed while Metro took forever to add a couple railings.

Metro also put the stairs on the wrong side. Despite the photo in the story you linked, the stairs are most useful for people entering the station since two escalators are almost always going up and only one going down. In that case, the stairs should be next to the down escalator. Instead, the upward traffic will concentrate in the middle and the downward traffic on both sides, with predictably bad flow at the top and bottom as traffic crosses and gets mixed together.

by Nick81 on May 17, 2012 4:46 pm • link • report

Also, my prediction of 2 million rides for cabi this year is looking pretty good.

by h street landlord on May 17, 2012 5:10 pm • link • report

You're a moderately paid person, you have a condo you bought for 150k thats almost paid off, and someone is offering you 750k for it. your friggin ship has come in. A lifetime of financial mistakes is now about to not matter. You can retire in style - its so close you can taste it.

The current market value of this property is still over 500K. The current owners are still able to sell at market rate, which, for your example, is a healthy profit on a 150K investment. If others buy in and speculate on the possibility of getting 100% of owners to sell out, then they are doing exactly what the difference between current market value and a possible buy out offer signifies - the risk of speculation.

by CJ on May 17, 2012 5:20 pm • link • report

The market value of the townhouse on the open market is still way over $500K- I'd guess $700K. And that will increase perhaps 5%-10%/year. So holding on isn't really bad business.

Plus the hold-out in any parcel assembling always gets several times standard offer.

by Tom Coumaris on May 17, 2012 6:45 pm • link • report

I wouldn't say Lydia's racist, but she does seem to harp on the racial aspect of gentrification, which has a lot more to do with class than race IMHO. They only need to buy-out the first stick of townhouses on both S street and Riggs(?) to get the 14th street frontage done and could leave the rest alone to be preserved as a pure example of 1970's Mansard Public Housing Revival.

by Thayer-D on May 18, 2012 6:47 am • link • report

It's always helpful to bear in mind that Lydia is classified as a real estate reporter, and not a local or community reporter. That is where her/their priority is. Real estate.

To some extent I find that the first G in GGW often can stand for greedier, the degree to which conversations often boil down more to dollars than fostering a sense of community and local ties (and knowing about where we live). That's where the emphasis is, that's where the fascination lies - with the choice the 14th street owners are now facing. No one gave a hoot about them until now.

by Jazzy on May 18, 2012 7:44 am • link • report

There's a bit of a Goldilocks Paradox when we talk about race relations & DC. Everyone agrees that it's a huge driver of the District culture, and everyone nods their heads gravely and agrees "we must talk about such things openly".

But it's also very attractive to attack anyone you brings the matter up as being "too hot" or "too cold". Somehow it's only folks that we agree with 100% who get it "just right". I think the critiques of DePilis' piece are perfect examples of this tendency.

by oboe on May 18, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

It's always helpful to bear in mind that Lydia is classified as a real estate reporter, and not a local or community reporter. That is where her/their priority is. Real estate.

All true. But even real estate reporters still have opinions and are influenced by their own orientation. Shouldn't excuse her cluelessness. She decided to write an article and include race as one of her talking points...and I responded. Even "fan favorites" deserve criticism. She's no exception.

I don't question DAl's motivation in injecting race in the other piece. I do, however, question Lydia's.

by HogWash on May 18, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

@jazzy

actually I would say many of us are interested in urbanism largely out of a concern about global warming, and also because of a desire to see dense places thrive again because we LIKE those kinds of communities. However much of what drives the change from the old patterns, with too much sprawl, and with urban areas in financial trouble, are, in fact, real estate market trends. And yes, GGW focuses on that, and properly so.

If I want general interest stories about life in the distric t WaPo, WAMU, etc provide them. As do many other blogs. This was an interesting real estate story.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 18, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

@ Mike:The plans for the Silver Line station at Dulles are actually pretty cool. It looks like an echo of the Saarinen terminal.

Too bad the station is not in the Saarinen terminal.

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 9:39 am • link • report

@oboe: when it rains or snows, people also take fewer trips.

@Lance: "mayhem" is what I call a auto dominated transportation system that kills 40,000 people a year in bloody crashes.

by Payton on May 18, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

I am talking about something much deeper than "general interest stories."

by Jazzy on May 18, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

@Jasper
Too bad the station is not in the Saarinen terminal.

Had there been more money granted for the project that may have happened.

Me thinks one of the reasons why MWAA chose not to use any of their money to pay for a station closer to the terminal is it would likely have cut into their parking revenue.

by Sand Box John on May 20, 2012 9:06 am • link • report