Development
Tenleytown Safeway plan shows no signs of improving
After the heated debate at the November ANC 3E meeting, you might have expected an even fiercer confrontation this past Thursday. There were even promises of it.
Please buy your latte inside.
But it wasn't. Instead, anger gave way to dismay at the lack of substantial improvements in the plans. While Safeway's regional real estate manager Avis Black attended the meeting, she entrusted the presentation to Brian O'Looney of Torti Gallas. He explained their efforts to make the bulk of the structure as unobtrusive as possible without sacrificing the program of the store.
Yet, that program, the functional concept of the store, is precisely the problem. The grocery store, and all its subsidiary stores, such as a Starbucks, would face inward, contained in one enormous envelope with a unitary entrance instead of creating smaller stores facing outward.
Out front, it became clear that Safeway did not want to remove a slip lane between Wisconsin and 42nd St. because they intend to use it for cars to idle while drivers pick up groceries. A reconfigured intersection would be safer for pedestrians, produce a better pocket park, and reduce the amount of speeding on 42nd, but it was not appealing to Safeway.
Unfortunately, critics of the store could not put up a consistent front, going off on tangents about a number of minor elements, some of which were created by other halfhearted concessions. Whose interests does the store need to address? Some residents want a smaller store. One teacher at the adjacent Georgetown Day School objected to Safeway's decision to move the controversial rear walkway, which ran from the school to the store entrance, inside the garage. "We are neighbors too," he said.
And beyond that, how about the residents of a few blocks away
What did appear was a conclusive sense that dialogue had failed between neighbors and the store. Safeway had made no promises and now promised even less. The neighbors in attendance seemed to not expect any changes. The potential for mixed use and sustainable neighborhood design gets lost, unless Safeway reconsiders their plans or the zoning commission rejects them. The site has much potential, but Safeway is choosing to squander that.
Crossposted at цarьchitect.Neil Flanagan is a Washington native currently studying for a masters in architecture at Yale. He gets his best ideas while out walking, and often writes them down at his blog, цarьchitect. 
Comments
@ggwash
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials
- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2006/02/urban-grocery-shopping.html
by Richard Layman on Dec 16, 2009 4:05 pm
by Richard Layman on Dec 16, 2009 4:06 pm
by Lance on Dec 16, 2009 10:57 pm
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 16, 2009 11:57 pm
That sounds weird - make that "growth potential." This Safeway is somewhat like a polyp, though.
Richard:
Thanks for that link. I'd love to write an article about the way grocery stores function in New York, but I haven't had the time to go up recently. Still - they're remarkably urban. even if they're not crowded. The Trader Joe's in Brooklyn, or Westside Market in Morningside Heights are both examples of relatively large stores that still address the street better.
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 17, 2009 2:14 am
by Paul on Dec 17, 2009 7:07 am
At a minimum, they should be paying for the necessary points to get to LEED Gold. I would also agree with those calling on Safeway to consider (either themselves or with a developer partner) building up and including a housing component, particularly for DCPS, DCFD and MPD employees. We simply have to have this kind of resource in the District.
by Andrew on Dec 17, 2009 7:49 am
As for mixed-use, a block or two away Babe's went unbuilt for lack of residential demand (and financing). Jemal's redeveloping it as office and retail space.
by Z on Dec 17, 2009 3:51 pm
As for the Babe's property, from what I've read about it, I thought it was incompetence on the part of the developer (paying too much at the height of the real estate market) and neighborhood opposition (demanding a smaller development and persistent delay) that doomed this project.
by Ben on Dec 17, 2009 4:20 pm
The DDOT proposal, btw, would continue to allow two-way access to 42nd Street. Motorists coming from Wisconsin would just have to slow down to get to 42nd instead of speeding onto the slip road.
Safeway currently proposes to cut down a bunch of trees and put a bench on the orphaned green island in front of Safeway and call it a park. Nobody uses the orphaned green islands in NW, and nobody would have any more reason to use this one. Safeway, in its freely acknowledges their proposal is about increasing visibility for their store from Wisconsin.
It is these orphaned triangles that "serve to separate uses and destinations further, discouraging walking as a travel mode and wasting land close to Metro stations."
If you connect that island to Safeway's front door -- making it a peninsula -- and put a fountain or a similar focal point there, pedestrians will -- safely -- walk by the focal point on the way to the store. That's an urban amenity, and it would really be the only remotely-urban amenity Safeway is proposing.
As for residential, Z appears to be behind the times. I hear that Jemal has changed his mind and is going to build 3 or 4 stories of residential above ground-floor retail, because residential is what's selling and what can be financed.
by Tenley Tattler on Dec 17, 2009 5:09 pm
RE shilling for Safeway. It's hardly shilling for Safeway to believe that a grocery store chain should be allowed to build grocery stores on land it owns. If Jemal is building housing two blocks south of the Safeway and more housing is going in at the Bank of America site a few blocks north, then there's even less reason to compel grocers to become landlords when there are other parcels and other developers willing to take on the risks of building residential in this market.
I agree re orphaned triangles but hardly think that a fountain transforms a lawn into an urban amenity or that it's a good reason to close off a block of 42nd Street. This is not a particularly dangerous intersection. The signals and crosswalks do an effective job of minimizing conflict between drivers and pedestrians.
by Z on Dec 17, 2009 6:01 pm
Closing that block of 42nd Street would be a disaster -- the grid is already compromised in that area by GDS.
They're not blocking off 42nd street, they're eliminating a slip lane and curving 42nd to meet Wisconsin at a right angle. What the ANC are suggesting is a well-tested practice for slowing cars at diagonal intersections.
And you'd have to be very cynical to call the strip of land that would be reclaimed by closing 42nd St a "park."
Absolutely not! The park would be several thousand square feet along a major pedestrian corridor. The quality of the pocket park would depend on the kind of amenities contained within. The thing about the green triangles - why they fail, is usually not their size, it's their isolation and the fact that they're totally bare.
RE shilling for Safeway. It's hardly shilling for Safeway to believe that a grocery store chain should be allowed to build grocery stores on land it owns.
That would be fine, but Safeway freely chose to enter into a PUD. They asked for the community's input. And they are expected to give something in return for the zoning change. But wait - do you also oppose zoning in general? It is coercive restriction on landowners, after all.
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 17, 2009 6:31 pm
by I Know What Z Did Last Summer on Dec 17, 2009 7:38 pm
by Ben on Dec 17, 2009 8:20 pm
As to how or whether the PUD changes the analysis, my understanding of the PUD process is that it's designed to create win-win projects that the affected parties agree are better than what strict compliance with the zoning code would project. So what I'd want to see is Safeway reach agreement with the immediate neighbors who are most impacted. I also think that the Zoning Commission is right to push for a greener building and for good design.
But the PUD process is not meant to be an extortion racket. And I think we'll get less-than-optimal decisionmaking regarding how much housing should be built and where it should be located, which roads should be closed, and what kinds of parks we need where if these are agendas are pursued through the PUD process (i.e. in the context of specific development projects whose scope and timing is determined by individual landowners) rather than through more general planning processes.
And, yes, it would be a road closure of a block of 42nd Street. Vehicular traffic would no longer be able to go directly from Ellicott to 42nd -- it would be forced onto Wisconsin Avenue. This strikes me as problematic, especially since access from Davenport to 42nd St. is already blocked by GDS's campus. I've seen nothing to indicate that DDOT has done any study of this intersection which has not been accident-prone to my knowledge. Seems like the park idea is just the ANC's attempt to claim they extracted something from Safeway in exchange for the PUD. I don't think it improves the project or constitutes an amenity. And I think that this kind of project creates a different set of stakeholders than have been engaged on the Safeway project. Nor do I think that there's any kind of community consensus that the Safeway PUD should be opposed unless housing is added or we get a fountain. Most people just want a better grocery store with minimal negative impact on the neighbors.
by Z on Dec 17, 2009 8:36 pm
IKWZDLS -- Actually, I had a really boring summer so I'm guess you don't.
by Z on Dec 17, 2009 8:42 pm
by Ben on Dec 17, 2009 8:51 pm
It would close a half block slip lane apparently created for Safeway so they could get their big trucks in more easily. Traffic from Ellicott would be able to turn right at a signalized intersection, and then turn right again onto 42nd Street. Big deal. Traffic that used to proceed at full speed onto 42nd Street from Wisconsin would have to slow down and make a regular right turn. Big deal. Actually, I can't even be that sarcastic -- traffic SHOULD slow down.
"Seems like the park idea is just the ANC's attempt to claim they extracted something from Safeway in exchange for the PUD."
Sounds like you oppose this idea because the ANC supports it.
"And you'd have to be very cynical to call the strip of land that would be reclaimed by closing 42nd St a "park.""
Since Safeway is claiming that cutting down trees and putting a bench in the existing orphaned triangle constitutes a) adopting a "park", and (b) conferring a significant amenity, and since closing the slip street would increase the sq. footage of the triangle, you must believe Safeway is VERY cynical. Bad Safeway.
by Monkey Zrotica on Dec 17, 2009 9:01 pm
Again, my complaint is that this proposal isn't based on any kind of rigorous traffic study or parks planning. And, as a result, the proposal doesn't make sense -- either from a pedestrian safety/traffic flow standpoint or as a park.
There's not much land and it's not exactly unused land available for recreational programming. It houses a WMATA facility that, presumably, isn't going to be moved and a large swath of sidewalk level vents for the Metrorail as well as a bus stop. Fountain or no, it will remain a glorified median strip -- not a place to relax and enjoy. As Ben previously pointed out, there are already a couple such "parks" in the immediate vicinity. It's not an amenity regardless of who proposes it.
Oh, and while I'm posting, I should make a correction -- Wisconsin Place in Friendship Heights has 432 (not 441) units.
by Z on Dec 18, 2009 5:55 am
It's easy to see that the park would be quite large, even without WMATA's property. It is also easy to see why the slip lane would pose a problem in the future:
(Full Size)
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 18, 2009 8:03 am
Secondly, you've failed to indicate the new "traffic hazard" this street closure would create for pedestrians walking along Wisconsin Avenue. Once the Ellicott & 42nd St intersection is closed, these pedestrians would then encounter two-way traffic entering and exiting the access lanes between Wisconsin and 42nd (which is *not* signalized currently and not likely to be).
Right now, that access lane (singular) is manageable because the traffic is one-way and because at the point where the sidewalk gives way to the traffic lane, both driver and pedestrian have a clear and immediate view of each other and the driver is coming off a relatively slow street (42nd).
By contrast, a northbound vehicle on Wisconsin trying to make the left onto 42nd at that point, will be focused on southbound vehicles on Wisconsin rather than northbound pedestrians. And thereÂ’s no signal, so the pedestrian crossing this unregulated intersection doesnÂ’t just have to survey one narrow line next to him (the current situation), but to monitor traffic coming from three different directions, one of which could be behind him and across the multiple lanes of relatively fast moving traffic. And thatÂ’s before we get to the potential for increased conflict between vehicles using those access lanes.
Prohibiting a left turn from Wisconsin onto 42nd would make the situation less risky but then you face the issue of how to reroute such traffic. Chesapeake, if I remember correctly, is not signalized. So are we back to River Road? Or left on Ellicott and then left on 43rd? Remember that the block you are making harder to access is one where 500 kids go to and from school, where groceries are delivered via truck, and where fleets of cars are dropped off at the Volvo/VW dealership.
Why am I “hiding behind the lack of a traffic study"? you ask. Because these days apparently anyone with access to photoshop fancies himself a traffic planner. Yet lives may depend on making these decisions intelligently. And, technically, it's not that there are no traffic studies encompassing this area -- in recent years there have been two or three (at least one of which was pedestrian-oriented). They did not identify this intersection as a problem even though they pointed out others that were hazardous. And that's consistent with my own regular and fairly extensive experience as a pedestrian in this area. So I don't want to see an intersection that works now (if you follow the rules) turned into an intersection that's a hazard.
As for the "park," you've overestimated its size and the shading obscures how much of the space is unusable (or will remain devoted to its current use (e.g. bus stop, subway grate, buffering for WMATA building). Functionally, we gain little in terms of recreational space by closing that part of 42nd St. And what we'd gain duplicates what we already have in the immediate vicinity (similar "parks" at 42nd/Chesapeake and Wisconsin/Fessenden) as well as what Safeway plans to build (outdoor seating & eating space) onsite.
Bottom line -- I see no upside and a significant downside to this proposal.
Finally, a personal aside. Neil -- reread the first sentence of your previous post and then look at every post I've made on this thread prior to yours. Consider whether you owe me an apology. Alternatively, consider whether, if you were a prospective employer, you'd hire this "Neil Flanagan" for any position requiring client contact or public outreach or even collaborative work after reading this thread.
by Z on Dec 18, 2009 6:53 pm
Good idea. LetÂ’s do that, but consolidate these arguments so I can address them individually. ItÂ’s the weekend and itÂ’s cold out, yo!
Road closure.
Again, it's not a slip lane that would be closed -- it's a block of 42nd Street. | | Â…which roads should be closedÂ… | | And, yes, it would be a road closure of a block of 42nd Street. | | Â…or that it's a good reason to close off a block of 42nd Street. | | by closing that part of 42nd St.
There will be no road closure. This is why I related my confusion over your intents in that first line. I really do not understand why you are saying this is a block closure, but it smells funny to me. Sorry, but what can I call you other than deceitful?
And that closure would necessitate a re-engineering of the existing access lane from northbound 42nd to Wisconsin which would have to be widened and re-shapedÂ…
True. However, that is not a serious loss of land. The road is already 25Â’ wide as it is, and it would only require 5-15Â’ more room, which I accounted for in my drawing. It could be less, if we ignore parking on either side. You sound as though this is some horrible task too. A civil engineer could do this in their sleep, and the road would need reconstruction after the construction, anyway.
Vehicular traffic would no longer be able to go directly from Ellicott to 42nd -- it would be forced onto Wisconsin Avenue. This strikes me as problematic, especially since access from Davenport to 42nd St. is already blocked by GDS's campus.
Huh? They just drive 200 feet more and take a turn. This does not reduce the network connectivity, merely the speed at which one can connect.
Prohibiting a left turn from Wisconsin onto 42nd would make the situation less risky but then you face the issue of how to reroute such traffic. Chesapeake, if I remember correctly, is not signalized. So are we back to River Road? Or left on Ellicott and then left on 43rd? Remember that the block you are making harder to access is one where 500 kids go to and from school, where groceries are delivered via truck, and where fleets of cars are dropped off at the Volvo/VW dealership.
People who deliver goods and children on a regular basis will understand the traffic in the area. They can go to Brandywine or River road. On the other hand, I would like to see 43rd street reopened, because it would allow for better flow for everyone. Again, this assumes there is no signalization, and there would be no truck deliveries if certain neighbors had not interfered with a developerÂ’s efforts.
Safety
I've seen nothing to indicate that DDOT has done any study of this intersection which has not been accident-prone to my knowledge.
This is not a particularly dangerous intersection. The signals and crosswalks do an effective job of minimizing conflict between drivers and pedestrians.
The conditions now can only predict the conditions in the future. Especially if more development occurs along the corridor, as I hope it does.
Has there been a traffic engineering study of that intersection done by DDOT? If so, where is it and when was it done? If not, there's no reason to defer to DDOT's "expertise."
Again, my complaint is that this proposal isn't based on any kind of rigorous traffic study or parks planning. And, as a result, the proposal doesn't make sense -- either from a pedestrian safety/traffic flow standpoint or as a park.
They did not identify this intersection as a problem even though they pointed out others that were hazardous. And that's consistent with my own regular and fairly extensive experience as a pedestrian in this area. So I don't want to see an intersection that works now (if you follow the rules) turned into an intersection that's a hazard.
Why am I “hiding behind the lack of a traffic study"? you ask. Because these days apparently anyone with access to photoshop fancies himself a traffic planner.
And everyone who has half an opinion is an expert on optimal density – even when the planning profession disagrees. I drew diagrams because they show what your words were eliding. And actually, I think that the public ideas tossed around by and locals can be very productive. DDOT employees do look at fantasy maps, in fact. Likewise, architects often hold public charettes to get input from the public, because the public sometimes sees thing the planners can’t. I can’t plan a bus schedule, but I can see a problem when it’s right in front of me.
But wait, are the DDOT planners experts or are they just as clueless as us photoshop jockeys? DDOT and countless other DOTs have applied the same curve-to-perpendicular design to reduce speeds and collisions. ItÂ’s standard design practice, and itÂ’s successful.
The ARD has given no evidence that they rely upon studies to make their opinions in the past, so I find it hard to believe that that is the real reason to oppose it.
You've shown an existing "traffic hazard" that's only a hazard for jaywalkers -- steps away there's a crosswalk at a signalized intersection to get you between the points indicated.
Those dastardly jaywalkers. They make me sick. They pose a clear and present threat to the windshields of our law-abiding driver.
There is no matter of right and wrong in traffic planning, it is an optimization problem. Playing by the rules is good only when the rules make sense. The position of SafewayÂ’s entrance will encourage jaywalkers because people coming off of Wisconsin would have to walk a circuitous path to get there legally. ItÂ’s not good design to create a moral hazard for people trying to pick up a bottle of milk. Jaywalkers will be a fact because the desire lines will form to connect the main street to the main entrance. If we put a park there, it would not only prevent jaywalking but put a park for pedestrians to enjoy right in the middle of the path.
Secondly, you've failed to indicate the new "traffic hazard" this street closure would create for pedestrians walking along Wisconsin Avenue. Once the Ellicott & 42nd St intersection is closed, these pedestrians would then encounter two-way traffic entering and exiting the access lanes between Wisconsin and 42nd (which is *not* signalized currently and not likely to be).
Right now, that access lane (singular) is manageable because the traffic is one-wayÂ…
This is where the perception of danger does not mesh with the actual danger. Calling that a safety hazard is extremely specious. Two-way streets are much safer because they cause drivers to go slowly. A car going 20 will not likely kill a person, but one going 30 may very well. This is a well documented issue. So although you have to look both ways, itÂ’s actually better for both parties.
What exactly is an access lane, by the way?
and because at the point where the sidewalk gives way to the traffic lane, both driver and pedestrian have a clear and immediate view of each other and the driver is coming off a relatively slow street (42nd).
And they will have a clearer view in the future. Moreover, the turn from Wisconsin to 42nd will require the driver to slow down, whereas, they do not have to and do not slow down from the “35 mph” speed that is much higher than that.
By contrast, a northbound vehicle on Wisconsin trying to make the left onto 42nd at that point, will be focused on southbound vehicles on Wisconsin rather than northbound pedestrians.
What about southbound pedestrians? Are they not people too? This individual can still turn west onto Ellicott. If the needed to turn onto 42nd, Brandywine and River Road are both signalized at Wisconsin. This is immaterial if they signalize the intersection, though.
And there’s no signal, so the pedestrian crossing this unregulated intersection doesn’t just have to survey one narrow line next to him (the current situation), but to monitor traffic coming from three different directions, one of which could be behind him and across the multiple lanes of relatively fast moving traffic. And that’s before we get to the potential for increased conflict between vehicles using those access lanes.
Why is your driver male? Again, we can signalize the intersection or even ban the left-hand turn. The consequences of that will not be as severe as you suggest, especially because people are doing that already at Ellicott. Also, would you also be interested in supporting rigorous traffic calming on Wisconsin? That is one of Ward 3 VisionÂ’s goals.
Yet lives may depend on making these decisions intelligently.
Exactly. ThatÂ’s why we need to remove traffic elements from the neighborhood if they resemble highway geometry. More importantly, a richer, more walkable environment might save a couple of people from congestive heart failure.
And, technically, it's not that there are no traffic studies encompassing this area -- in recent years there have been two or three (at least one of which was pedestrian-oriented).
IÂ’d love to see these. IÂ’ve seen one or two Can you point me to them?
The pocket park
There's not much land and it's not exactly unused land available for recreational programming.
Perhaps the key phrase here is “recreational programming.” This is not the sole purpose of parks, and this is the key difference between our worldviews. A park is a place for recreation and socialization, plus trees. There does not have to be a soccer field. Many of the best parks in the world are just large enough to contain a feature, some benches, and nice shade. This is, after all, exactly what Dupont Circle is.
Fountain or no, it will remain a glorified median strip -- not a place to relax and enjoy. | | I agree re orphaned triangles but hardly think that a fountain transforms a lawn into an urban amenity or that it's a good reason to close off a block of 42nd Street.
A 4800 sf space is larger than most back yards in the area, and the success of a park here is only limited by the creativity of the architects. After talking with Brian OÂ’Looney, I think he has the goods to get a good park out of his team. I would be interested in your experience in studying small parks and how they work, but the professional consensus of a good small park is what weÂ’re proposing.
It houses a WMATA facility that, presumably, isn't going to be moved and a large swath of sidewalk level vents for the Metrorail as well as a bus stop. | | As for the "park," you've overestimated its size and the shading obscures how much of the space is unusable (or will remain devoted to its current use (e.g. bus stop, subway grate, buffering for WMATA building). | | As Ben previously pointed out, there are already a couple such "parks" in the immediate vicinity. It's not an amenity regardless of who proposes it.
Ah – see here is a big issue! Again, the usefulness of a park is determined by its location and the creativity of the designer. If wide-open green space were what people really wanted, then Fort Reno Park would be packed on weekends. Now, it’s only the dog walkers and people playing soccer. The other green triangles nearby lack almost all places for people to sit. The one that does, at Fessenden, has one bench and it does get use. If we build this park as a place for lingering, then it will be wildly successful.
Moreover, I would say that the store entrance and the bus station make this park even better! One of my favorite parks is in New Haven, where a building burned down. There is a bus stop there used by commuters and others who are reliant on transit. As a result, there are people waiting in the shade, reading, and watching others pass by while they wait for their bus. ItÂ’s a form of casual relaxation. The difference between the bus station and the park is nonexistent it is a beautiful bus stop and a well-activated park. Great place, and almost exactly the size of the alternate-proposed park.
As people wait for the bus, or a driver, after shopping, they will love the space. Students will likewise wait here. Maybe they will be wearing skinny jeans and sexting, but weÂ’ll have to take that in stride. The grate poses no obstacle if there is a walkway or something more creative. In New York, they have been putting bike racks and benches over the subway grates, and it seems to be working out quite well.
Functionally, we gain little in terms of recreational space by closing that part of 42nd St. And what we'd gain duplicates what we already have in the immediate vicinity (similar "parks" at 42nd/Chesapeake and Wisconsin/Fessenden) as well as what Safeway plans to build (outdoor seating & eating space) onsite.
This is plainly untrue, since we have no idea what the park would look like. But Safeway’s café seating lacks the café, and also activation of the front door and foot traffic on Wisconsin. Besides, Safeway has stated in the PUD documents that their bare bench island is an amenity. Even they think we need more seating.
Growth
Ben -- There are also 441 new units near the Friendship Heights Metro (one of the two you've mentioned) and hundreds more slated for the GEICO parcel if demand exists. ---- And people commute from West Virginia not because they can't find apartments near the Red Line but because they want houses with yards.
YouÂ’ve taken an extreme example here. People do commute from high-rises in White Oak because they canÂ’t afford new properties. Likewise, the cost of developing land in Northwest is very high because of the scarcity of property that is zoned for density. Part of the result of this is that it is still cheaper to build in poorer areas of the city. Every unit that is discouraged from our part of town is going to end up somewhere else, usually leading to the displacement of families who simply donÂ’t make more money.
Inclusionary zoning is a nice feature, but the only real way to get more affordable housing is to build more housing. All rent-control laws do is jack up the prices elsewhere. There is a social obligation to encouraging good, transit-oriented development.
In anticipation of sprawl and regional population growth what we should be focusing on is better public transit (more extensive, more reliable, more frequent, longer hours).
But if there is no density to support transit, then transit will be a drain on taxpayers, take too long to use, and will ultimately be bad for the environment. The whole point of building density around metro stations, and why I encourage it, is that people can walk around and use no energy at all. IÂ’m not going to go into the fundamentals of appropriate development, but smart growth is destiny.
Zoning requirements are designed to balance the competing interests of different property owners. I think that's a good thing. But that's why they are generally phrased in terms of maxima -- don't go beyond this limit or you'll compromise someone else's use of their property.
Irrespective, it is still coercive restriction on property rights. There are so many places where developers and private homeowners run into these limits that make it hard for them to develop. In DC, those zoning laws are also based on outdated ideas of what individualsÂ’ and the publicÂ’s interests are. Every ANC meeting seems to bring someone discovering that their capacious side-yard is too small for the zoning. That is why the ZC has been trying to change the current laws for the past few years.
By contrast, I'd be opposed to zoning requirements that required property owners to build up to the maximum allowed by the zoning code because that logic will dispossess property owners who lack significant capital (or who don't want to invest it in ways the government wants them to).
Nobody is proposing that. This is a disingenuous red herring. The cost of the scarce buildable land in DC is far more to blame for the stalled development of Wisconsin.
The PUD
As to how or whether the PUD changes the analysis, my understanding of the PUD process is that it's designed to create win-win projects that the affected parties agree are better than what strict compliance with the zoning code would project.
Which is what weÂ’re doing at the ANC meetings. Have you been coming?
So what I'd want to see is Safeway reach agreement with the immediate neighbors who are most impacted. I also think that the Zoning Commission is right to push for a greener building and for good design.
Good design and green building = a street that encourages low-energy transportation and makes the area a joy to live in. Green building is more than just the direct energy consumption; itÂ’s also the quality of life and the way it encourages healthier living. I do LEED certification at my job. There are ways to get LEED Silver without actually building a holistically green building, and quite frankly, that is what Safeway is doing.
Seems like the park idea is just the ANC's attempt to claim they extracted something from Safeway in exchange for the PUD. | | It's not an amenity regardless of who proposes it.
But I say it is, and so do the elected representatives, who have made this only a small part of the list of demands. YouÂ’re trying to blame them for enhancing one of SafewayÂ’s own claimed amenities. Again, disingenuous.
I don't think it improves the project or constitutes an amenity. And I think that this kind of project creates a different set of stakeholders than have been engaged on the Safeway project. | | Nor do I think that there's any kind of community consensus that the Safeway PUD should be opposed unless housing is added or we get a fountain. Most people just want a better grocery store with minimal negative impact on the neighbors.
Everyone wants a better grocery store. But we want a better grocery store, not a better-dressed one. I donÂ’t care if they build housing. All I want is a renovation that puts storefronts on the street, so Tenleytown can grow into a vibrant neighborhood. However, I want to make a it clear that some residents of Tenleytown welcome density and recognize the transformational role that Transit-oriented development can have on the environment and the public realm.
But the PUD process is not meant to be an extortion racket. And I think we'll get less-than-optimal decisionmaking regarding how much housing should be built and where it should be located, which roads should be closed, and what kinds of parks we need where if these are agendas are pursued through the PUD process (i.e. in the context of specific development projects whose scope and timing is determined by individual landowners) rather than through more general planning processes.
Coming from someone who does not deny involvement in the ARD, this statement is to be expected. It's also grossly hyperbolic. But the substance of the claim is wrong as well and it extrapolates recklessly. The general plan actually calls for more housing or commercial space above. Besides, the whole point of the PUD process is to tweak the general zoning process when an alternative would be a better choice.
Additionally, DDOTÂ’s letter says that closing the street would be consistent with their planning guidelines.
RE shilling for Safeway. It's hardly shilling for Safeway to believe that a grocery store chain should be allowed to build grocery stores on land it owns.
Nobody is opposing that. However, they came into public negotiations with no amenities and a flawed building. I want Safeway to make money. I want them to have good produce. But they are not being as flexible as they are asking of the neighborhood.
Bottom line -- I see no upside and a significant downside to this proposal.
I canÂ’t agree, but we will succeed in building it and time will show us whether it is successful or not. I am confident.
Consider whether you owe me an apology. Alternatively, consider whether, if you were a prospective employer, you'd hire this "Neil Flanagan" for any position requiring client contact or public outreach or even collaborative work after reading this thread.
Probably not. He clearly spends far too much time on the internet arguing with people. I also have reason to believe he is a reprobate jaywalker.
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 19, 2009 9:20 am
by David Alpert on Dec 19, 2009 9:45 am
Frankly, the environment here doesn't appear to be conducive to constructive debate, so I'll bow out at this point.
by Z on Dec 19, 2009 12:39 pm
I don't regularly read GGW or post here, but I don't understand why you would want to encourage posters like "Tenley Tattler" to use your blog to pursue their own vendettas and to spread misinformation. And "I Know What Z Did Last Summer" is positively creepy -- sounds like a stalker.
As I've pointed out previously, I don't belong (never have) to ARD. And I wasn't particularly active in the Akridge PUD (didn't testify, didn't sign the petition, didn't attend any meetings about it).
I think you'd see fewer gratuitously nasty and misleading posts (which detract from the blog as a whole) if their authors had to be willing to take responsibility for them in order to have them posted. I guess that the logistical issue is pre-screening (which seems unduly burdensome), but I'd settle for authors' names published after the fact or posts removed when attribution is refused or can't be verified.
by Sue Hemberger on Dec 20, 2009 2:07 pm
by Ben on Dec 20, 2009 9:10 pm
Are you Benjamin Mann? If so, I don't believe we've ever met, though I recognize your name from the Tenleytown listserv. Certainly we've never spoken, so I find it hard to see how you could assess my candor, friendships, or affiliations. And if you're not Benjamin Mann, I have no idea who you are. The only Ben I know in the neighborhood is in kindergarten and I'm sure he'd vouch for my integrity (as well as my excellent taste in boardgames and sweets)!
by Sue Hemberger on Dec 20, 2009 11:41 pm
I would like to see why people believe that the park would not be a good amenity or that street-facing retail would be an undue burden on Safeway. And what about the back of the building? What is the ARD or Ms. Hemberger's solution to the wall at the rear of the building?
by Neil Flanagan on Dec 21, 2009 5:52 am
I agree that the tone of the rhetoric on this thread got out of hand. Many people were guilty of it. I try to keep up with the comments, but when they are flying fast and furious on a thread, I don't always get to read every one in great detail. I didn't notice that the tone was getting poisonous; if I had, I would have stepped in.
BTW, Neil Albert is the City Administrator. I'm David, and my last name is spelled differently.
by David Alpert on Dec 22, 2009 10:45 am
Yeah, I know Neil Albert all too well, LOL -- no confusion there! My mistake was eliding Neil Flanagan's first name and your last name. Sorry about that.
by Sue Hemberger on Dec 22, 2009 2:37 pm
Add a Comment