The streetcar is going to be a total disaster. No rational person will wait 18 minutes when walking from Union Station to 13th and H only takes about 20 minutes in the first place.

As for the cabs, good to finally see some progress and screw the cab drivers who think GPS tracking is an "invasion of privacy".

by MJ on Aug 23, 2012 8:54 am • link • report

I don't see the problem with the GGNYC cycling articles. Liking the idea of something isn't the same as using it.

by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

The City Paper article of the guy responsible for repairing the awfulness that is SW DC has a somewhat contradictory stance. On the one hand he would tell visiting Chinese architects...“They’re building these awful places. You could show them, ‘Hey, you’re repeating this.’ (This being SW Urban Renewal Architecture) On the other hand he says,
"A lot of the buildings, even some of the superstructures, should be preserved, Thom says". So why would we preserve buildings that he dosen't think merit being in a Chinese city?

This next exchange reveals some of his reasoning for keeping the existing buildings.

“The [NCPC] brought me on to ask, ‘Should we save these mid-century Modern experiments as examples?’ There’s not a lot of it done like what’s done in Southwest,” Thom says. “It’s in a way a very interesting laboratory for future generations"

Of course, it's mid-century Modern, what could be cooler! Not that there's anything wrong with experimentation, but I'm not sure describing an area as an "interesting labratory" outweighs these buildings being awful, as he redealy admits, but at least it's clear why he'd like to preserve these "masculine" buildings.

by Thayer-D on Aug 23, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

What is the status of the streetcar barn on Benning? I haven't heard anything in the past few weeks after McDuffie submitted the letter to Gray. Also, when is construction of the remaining track on the Hopscotch Bridge supposed to begin? And when are the power lines going to be installed?

by Mike on Aug 23, 2012 9:08 am • link • report

Just to be clear, when people complain about SW, what are they talking about? River Park and tiber Island?

by charlie on Aug 23, 2012 9:12 am • link • report

Sounds like tome residents should buy a golf course.

by Michael Perkins on Aug 23, 2012 9:16 am • link • report

*some*

by Michael Perkins on Aug 23, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

Wish Mr. Thom would also look across S. Capitol and give suggestions on stuff currently being built there.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 23, 2012 9:31 am • link • report

I'd like more details on the Reston Golf Course. I mean I can see how it sucks for those who like to play golf but are they really talking about tearing up playable holes? Or is just extra land?

Also it doesn't bode well for the neighbors if their only defense is "it's not in the master plan!" when variances are granted all the time.

Plus its not as if a golf course is pristine untouched land. Its a huge environmental cost to maintain so that its playable.

by drumz on Aug 23, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

drumz

Given what else is happening on land near the silver line metros, I would guess they want to do something high density, not homes tucked in among the fairways.

Reading the article, it sounds like FFX cty is not eager to take on the reston civic orgs politically. I dont think the FFX pols would support the zoning variance. Based on this I would say that adds weight to the Oboe scenario.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 23, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

Where is there extra land at Reston National, drumz? The owners don't want to do this because of financial struggles. That course along with their others are very successful. They want to do it for a larger immediate cash grab. I don't fault them for that, but those people live there with the expectation that they're overlooking a golf course not an unforeseen development and I'm sure their home values reflect that. Citing the master plan is normally considered a better reason than property value or viewshed around here.

by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 9:52 am • link • report

GGW reference in the City Paper about SW:

"He meant to turn the tide by filling in vacant spaces and other incremental changes—the kind of recommendation that might win over the urbanist bloggers of Greater Greater Washington today."

by Thaddeus Bell on Aug 23, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

I am amazed that the plan for GPS and credit card service is being called a technology advancement. Because it's anything but technologically advanced.

I asked one of the cab drivers what it would cost to put in such a system, and his answer was "thousands" of dollars. It requires a long-term contract for credit card handling, and a turnkey system for GPS handling.

Now, consider a few other technology choices which provide the same services, but are a better fit for a penny conscious cab company. Cab drivers could use Square (https://squareup.com/) which is the expense of a smart phone and 2.5% transaction charges, with no commitment. And an iPad or Android tablet has enough GPS power in it to provide both a map and touch sensitive screen for information.

I think we should apologize to cab drivers for making them buy expensive gear that they really don't need, when they could provide the same service for much less.

by Jonathan B on Aug 23, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

Walker,

Oh I totally get that's what the owner(s) want to build. Personally I'm into that though I understand adjacent owner's objections. Re: the chances of it happening, I can't say, I was just remarking that the only argument against it was "but it's always been this way!" which doesn't really hold water in my eyes, absent of potential political fallout.

Selxic,
I don't know the layout of the land, which is why I wanted to know more. Is he proposing converting the whole course or just part? Maybe I missed that in the article.

Re: the master plan, their citing of it is just general and seems to be that "zoning is zoning and can't be changed" where it seems easy to counter with something else in the master plan talking about wanting to optimize the county's metro stations. But you're right, it is better that they're at least arguing to stick with the plan rather than the usual.

by drumz on Aug 23, 2012 10:11 am • link • report

Re: Reston

I love that when people fight densification or development in their area it seems they want to have it both ways. They don't want their "property rights" effected by this new item because it's not zoned that way but at the same time they espouse "property rights" as a reason to fight densification of some areas "I should be able to build what I want! It's my property"

Hope that came out like it was in my head.

by jj on Aug 23, 2012 10:26 am • link • report

Take note of how the neighborhood is currently integrated into the golf course.

View Larger Map

by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 10:34 am • link • report

selxc

I dont think they have a plan yet - they first want to establish that its residential, as of right.

The best place for high density, I guess, would be the NW corner, on sunrise, right near colts neck - about a thousand feet from the coming RTC metro station. Though a more direct path will be helpful. They could do low density on the rest of the property.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Aug 23, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

@selxic
I don't see the problem with the GGNYC cycling articles. Liking the idea of something isn't the same as using it.

The problem is those articles argue from the point of view that nobody likes the bike lanes except the lawbreaking scofflaws using them, which is clearly false.

by MLD on Aug 23, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

The article didn't argue that at all, MLD.

Frankly, StreetsBlog made something out of nothing on this one again.

by selxic on Aug 23, 2012 11:23 am • link • report

"I think we should apologize to cab drivers for making them buy expensive gear that they really don't need, when they could provide the same service for much less."

@Jonathan: Exactly. They could (and should have) provide the service for less, but they haven't. They've squarely refused to do so.

And I for one would never give my cc to a cab driver to swipe through his personal phone. No way. They rip people of when paying in cash; I'm don't want them to have a way to do it digitally too.

by MJ on Aug 23, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report

re: Cab drivers & CC

I'm curious: how does every other first-world municipality handle this? Let's do it that way.

If you ever want to have a good laugh, ask a cab advocate who's complaining about DC regulations, "OK, let's just do it the same way they do in MD and VA then." Because they sure as Hell don't want *that*.

The reason DC has such incredibly poor cab service is that the cab industry has traditionally been a huge political donor. And the people cutting the checks have traditionally gotten what they want. Unfortunately, since only the tiniest fraction of cab drivers (or owners) live in DC, they have no interest whatsoever in the quality of service.

by oboe on Aug 23, 2012 1:12 pm • link • report

@MJ,

I agree it should have been done in advance. But don't think - not for any split second - that the card reader being installed is any safer than "swiping through a phone". These proprietary credit card readers aren't any more secure than the ATM's that are around the area, and banks have been finding "skimmers" on those for several years now.

I think it's important that we distinguish between real fears of data security and the urban folklore like "phones would hold my credit card". If we don't, we are just making it easier for the real criminals.

by Jonathan B on Aug 23, 2012 6:20 pm • link • report