One of the biggest complaints I always hear is that D.C. is moving too fast now from longtime residents and natives like myself. I think this is very true, construction projects are popping up everywhere and developers are always planning to built something. One of the unique qualities about Ward 7, Ward 8, and much of PG county is that that are more rural, a lot of it still retains its southern feel, Deanwood especially which is one area I hope never becomes transit orientated and I'd stay NIMBY on it.

sidenote:
What is D.C. trying to prove? No matter how much sh*t it builds it will never be on the same level as New York City, which it seems like its trying to do. Not with congress in control.

by Shadow Inc. on Dec 23, 2010 10:53 am • link • report

Part of the problem with development east of the river is that that neighborhood does not have a street grid. It is an unfriendly layout for those that do not know the traffic patterns. This tends to make it insular.

by goldfish on Dec 23, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

Interesting. I actually disagree with this, which kind of surprises me.

First, I take issue with lumping ALL of east of the river together as one place. Tsk tsk, you know better. All of West of the river hasn't changed dramatically, ..just certain sections, and that's how it is going to happen east of the river too.

Also, the notion that "the type of change will not be as dramatic as seen in other parts of the city" is unsupportable. The change that comes to neighborhoods like Anacostia, Benning, and Congress Heights will be very dramatic. It might not be as high density or high-traffic as 14th Street, but it will be crazy different than what has been the norm for the past half-century.

I agree that the change will happen differently in that it happened at 14th & U NW ... but that doesn't mean it won't be as meaningful, transformational, or neighborhood-altering.

by DG-rad on Dec 23, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

@goldfish... I agree with the street grid as another issue...

@DG_Rad... I don't think you disagree as much as you think you do. At least I don't think so... LOL. I do agree that perhaps we could do a neighborhood drill down. Perhaps a series. But at any rate. I do agree that our neighborhoods will change. However, it will be a different type of change than seen in other parts of the city. There is a healthy fear from some people on this side of town that we will become U Street or pick any other up and come neighborhood. Our changes will be special and unique to us. We will lose some of the Mayberry feel. However we aren't going to have the overall density seen in other parts of the city.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Dec 23, 2010 11:07 am • link • report

@DG_Rad... for the record... I didn't chose the title of the post.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Dec 23, 2010 11:08 am • link • report

@Shadow Inc.... Deanwood has a lot of single family homeownership which is going to make high density difficult.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Dec 23, 2010 11:12 am • link • report

One of the biggest complaints I always hear is that D.C. is moving too fast now from longtime residents and natives like myself

What the hell does "moving too fast" even MEAN, and who care about whether it's "moving too fast" or not, anyway? OH NO! Stores are opening TOO FAST! People are renovating their housing TOO FAST! I'm so scared! Man-up, east-of-the-river-types. "Moving too fast" sounds like yo're all a bunch of crybabies who can't handle life.

by JustMe on Dec 23, 2010 11:49 am • link • report

""Moving too fast" sounds like yo're all a bunch of crybabies who can't handle life."

@JustMe, I agree 100%. I wish it were physically possible to agree more. If people don't want life to move so fast, they can become Mennonite and live up in Lancaster, PA or just move out to Kansas or Nebraska and buy a nice big farm. For crying out loud, people, you live in one of the most bustling urban regions in the United States.

by Sam on Dec 23, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

I think the lack of rowhouses will prevent anything like U NW or H NE from happening east of the river. It is also remote from any rowhouse neighborhoods. How poppin' is brightwood or manor park? Yuppies want rowhouses.

Just a thought.

by Jason on Dec 23, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

Yuppies want rowhouses.

You misunderstand the dynamic. Yuppies want to be close to restaurants, shops and other amenities. And to jobs. In order to have that, you need density. Rowhouses are just a symptom. Ask one of your "yuppies" if they'd rather have a 2600 square foot standalone house across the street from Eastern Market, or a 900 square foot rowhouse--costs being equal.

Sure you could get a giant standalone house east of the river, but at that point, you may as well live in Gaithersburg.

It's like saying people go so sushi restaurants because they really like chopsticks.

by oboe on Dec 23, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report

One problem with Ward 7 is the metrorail station locations more than just Deanwood being where it is.

Why are the Blue and Orange line stations so close together after the split; Minnesota Ave + Benning RD, Deanwood + Capitol Hgts are very close together when comparing to others stations on lines after they split. You have bus routes that stop at 3 stations and some which use to stop all of them years ago.

While the distance between the Blue and Green lines is 2.5 -3.5x the distance between the Blue and Orange lines

by kk on Dec 23, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

oboe;

Are rowhouses the symptoms, or the cause of density? You seem to have it backwards. I'd therefore posit neighborhoods east of the river aren't dense enough to become attractive in this sense.

Anyway, not to say rowhouses are the sole factor in determining which areas become hot, but there presence is an enormous boon for any neighborhood in which they exist. They are hip. They are sexy. I am posting rather train-of-thought but I have a hard time seeing any neighborhood in DC becomes the next U st or H st without actually looking like them. Of course Cap Riverfront and NoMA are "hot" but, well, apples and oranges.

You know this post might be totally off base and nonsensical but I don't care. Just putting it out there.

Anyone else have thoughts on the influence of rowhouses?

by Jason on Dec 23, 2010 2:35 pm • link • report

Very interesting posting. One observation I have is very non-specific and emotive, re: the topography of Anacostia proper. There simply is something comforting and cozy, to me, about many of the residential streets and pockets off of MLK Ave (esp. Mt. View, or the elbow that 13th makes, and so forth). It's ideal for a sense of community, neighbors connecting, etc., looks like blocks off a charming train set, and yet being so close to the commercial corridor, I hope these unique pockets are maintained and enhanced, rather than lost in any way, over the coming decade.

by Joel Lawson on Dec 23, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report

lots of rowhouses in communities East of the River. Fairlawn is almost all rowhouses (that look a lot like Petworth or Glover Park).

But yes, it is certainly less dense in most of Wards 7 & 8.

still don't see the relevance of lumping the whole of "East of the River together" like it will all happen at the same pace.

by DG-rad on Dec 23, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report

Are rowhouses the symptoms, or the cause of density? You seem to have it backwards. I'd therefore posit neighborhoods east of the river aren't dense enough to become attractive in this sense.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. Rowhouses aren't a "symptom" of density. Obviously, they're what makes density possible.

I was responding to the previous poster, who was confused that "yuppies like rowhouses". My point was that it's not rowhouses that yuppies are attracted to. It's the secondary effects of density.

Areas that don't have sufficient density won't become "hip." Small rowhouses are the largest possible unit that still allows sufficient density for walkable amenities, etc... I still maintain that it's not rowhouses per se that yuppies like, but the neighborhoods that are made possible by--among many other factors--rowhouses.

For another analogy,

by oboe on Dec 23, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report

Jason's right, sort of. Part of the attraction of living in an urban neighborhood is the historic housing stock, which in many D.C. neighborhoods means rowhouses like these guys in Shaw. Of course, there's a limited supply of 80+ year old rowhouses, and I've wondered what direction the regeneration of D.C. would take once every place with these old-school rowhouses has become prohibitively expensive. I figure they'll just move on to slightly newer, but historic houses. Certainly there are plenty of those East of the River, even if they are single-family homes. The allure is the location and the history, not the shared walls. I imagine the same would happen in Shepherd Park or Michigan Park, where there aren't a lot of rowhouses but you still have the benefits of living close to the action.

by dan reed! on Dec 23, 2010 5:05 pm • link • report

I like chopsticks.

by Yippie on Dec 23, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report

I'm pretty sure I'm a yuppie. And I'd prefer this single-family house on East Capitol:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/912-E-Capitol-St-NE-Washington-DC-20003/419844_zpid/

to this historic row house:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/800-E-Capitol-St-NE-Washington-DC-20003/88809474_zpid/

Again, row houses are popular because they're the closest thing that you can get to a single-family home with anything approaching density. Although exposed brick, etc, is nice, it's way down on the list of attributes. It's walkability and amenities. The rowhouses just happen to be there.

by oboe on Dec 23, 2010 5:46 pm • link • report

""Moving too fast" sounds like yo're all a bunch of crybabies who can't handle life." I think it's myopic thinking like this that misses the whole point of how neighborhood personalities are formed. Your view to me seems a bit to prefabricated, of course everyone wants walkability to the amenities, but what about the attraction of the existing land scape's. Not everyone prefer's this cookie cutter image of hippsville that you have, you have to respect and accommondate different view's, anyway, who gave you a monopoly on what life should or should not be like for everyone? Wake up folk's, coexistance breath's compromise, the over looking of that principle has us licking our wound's now.

by Anothernative on Dec 23, 2010 10:51 pm • link • report

My take is this. Every neighborhood in the District holds a different feel, with different housing stock. For example, areas like U Street/14th Street/Columbia Heights corridor are very much urban in its nature and housing stock options, However, the housing stock/options in neighborhoods such as; Takoma Park, Tentleytown/Friendship Heights, Michigan Park/ Brookland, Rhode Island Avenue,16th Street Heights have a mix of Multifamily units, Rowhomes and Single Family Homes that gives a neighborhood vibe of a suburban area. Yet they are also neighborhoods that are either experiencing a transition in growth and development, or have already been well developed. Why should Deanwood or any area in the Ward 7 section of the city be any different? Not all neighborhood in DC are mean to be urban to the extreme like the U Street Corridor. Look at the neighborhoods previously mentioned in addition to Capitol Hill neighborhood. They are not extremely "Urban" in the sense of housing stock and landscape, but they are in fact, neighborhoods were people live. To addres the "Urban Development" concerns of this Ward, I am pretty sure that there are or should be some highly skilled developers and planners in this area that can actually compile and integrate a sound plan for development that will incorporate more "urban" housing options into an area with existing housing and not only make it work, but also make it very appealing. Because there is always a solution to any problem and sometimes, it takes looking outside of the box for ideas to improve existing conditions of any area. And yes, there are actual rowhomes and duplexes in Ward 7. They may not be in the style of the brownstones in NW or Capitol Hill, but nonetheless, they are still rowhomes. Do the research.

by Ward 7 Citizen on Dec 24, 2010 2:02 am • link • report

Yawn, yawn, cough, clearin’ my throat.

This post aint sayin much but a whole big lot of nutsin. First to the get, you say you was told “not to go past 14th Street NW” – you mean westward to the S2 bus or eastward to the 70 bus. Which way was you not supposed to tippey-toe over to back in dem wildin’ days when Mike Jordan was still suited for my dear Wizards?

Good point about the Parks, though. That always and alldaz been the best spot to chief in the cut and have a good old throwdown chowdown wit the family.

Other than dat you dont say much son-son.

Uptown streets and parts of Cap Hill – da SE & NE – are grided and easy to get around in. My man from back in the day Le’Nfant Plaza knew what he was doing when he made big avenues (GA Ave, Wisconsin Ave, Penn (used to be Ohio) Ave, Conn Ave, etc that extend from the center city all the way out to the cut like Frederick, Aspen Hill, and the water if you take Penn Ave all the way out) and a grid part of the Capitol City. He wadnt no dummy like some other urban planner folks. But – the southside wasn’t part of his original map. Good Hope Tavern was there in the early 1800s and Asylum road for the US Lunatic spot – but there was no general map for the southside like there always was for the Uptown parts to follow. [SE Jerome note – Florida Ave was one of da 1st boundaries of the city – beyond that was the cut.]

I say all that to say that the Southside streets are all chopped up and that’s why yungins be getting chopped up. One ways, back-cuts in cuts, unpaved alleys, our streets are where murderers can and do lurk. All you educated pink people forget the young boy came up on Chicago Street in da belly of dat beast – we also have more Condon Terrace, da Farmz, Park Chester, Sheridan Terrace, da Lenchmob, Clay Terrace, Lincoln Heights, etc than the other side of the city.

The non-profit industrial complex wit all da white girl mafia members run this side of town – SOME, Bread for the City, Unity, Community/Academy of Hope, Whitman, FLY, Salvation Army, all the other non-profits like Marshall Heights that owe the city a lot of money on buildings they ain’t doin nutsin with, etc. They aint much else over here other than EBT, emergency rental assistance, feel-good bleeding heart places. Also, the churches that only exist in the community on Sunday morning. Have you look-go-see all the abandoned buildings in my hood?

It aint worth time to tell you how stuck on stupid you are talking about development around certain metro stations. Buildings – apartments and commercial - have been abandoned for years around the 5 metro stations we have. Central Ave just started to get fixed up a couple years ago. What about East Capitol Street?

I’m done. No more from me. These posts are all fake-me-out joints.

by SE Jerome on Dec 24, 2010 7:22 am • link • report

I'm reminded of that scene from Airplane, where the little old white lady interprets Jive for the plane's crew.

by Fritz on Dec 24, 2010 7:47 am • link • report

This blog's advocacy of density sometimes gets silly and this is a good example. A friend of mine recently bought in a middle class area of SE. The detached house sits on 1/11th of an acre. This is hardly a suburban level of density. The tiny GI bill houses that dot Wheaton sit on larger parcels.

Gentrification has happened in places that lack rowhouses. Brookland, for example. Brookland's gentrification roughly parallels that of Mt Pleasant (which does have rowhouses), although Brookland lacks the large stock of rent controlled apartments and the related Hispanic community. Both were segregated neighborhoods that remained nominally integrated after white flight. Catholic U provided an anchor for Brookland, while interns and frequent bus service did it for Mt Pleasant. Both were adjacent to forbidding neighborhoods and both have attracted families to a greater degree than other gentrifying areas.

Takoma Park, though, just outside the city is another example. And before the best known examples of "early" gentrification (e.g., DuPont) or the coining of the term "gentrification", there was Cleveland Park. It was impossible to get a conventional mortgage there in 1960 and the neighborhood did not reach it's current overpriced state until much later.

Not mentioned here are neighborhoods that have successfully attracted new generations of buyers like most of Ward 3 and places like Shepherd Park, all of which are built in single family homes. Shepherd Park is notable because it borders one of the least attractive commercial areas in the city.

E of the River includes a wide variety of neighborhoods including solidly middle class areas like Hillcrest which has a housing stock not unlike much of Chevy Chase DC. It also includes places like the Minnesota Ave Metro stop, which had begun to attract conventional gentrification just before the bubble and may be well placed to attract more of it in the future if people can get over its location.

I suspect that an unspoken subtext here is that if height limits were lifted E of the river, there would be a magical increase in density and development. It's pretty doubtful. The redevelopment of St E's is an accident of history and there are few other opportunities on that scale without wholesale destruction of neighborhoods or parks.

Retailers avoided even Ward 3 until 10-15 years ago. They figured those people would shop in Bethesda and that the rest of us would make our periodic voyages to the big boxes in Virginia. Then they ran out of suburban markets and "discovered" the city, without any change in the density of the places they "discovered".

by Rich on Dec 24, 2010 9:59 am • link • report

@ Rich,
Is there a difference in the height restriction difference in other areas in DC vs. the height restriction- east of the river area? Or is the height restriction the same across the district?

by Ward 7 Citizen on Dec 24, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report

Is SE Jerome serious or is he being sarastic? I understand the concept of the message of the post, but the way that it was put together sounded like he was being a jackass.

by LuvinDC on Dec 24, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

@All... Thanks for the discussion. I write about East of the River to bring Ward 7 and Ward 8 into the larger city conversation. I don't pretend to know all the answers. I like to throw ideas on the table.

@Ward 7 Citizen.... East of the River is not subject to the height restrictions as the original part of the City. The lower density, topography and the fact people are very protective of views and vistas is what limits the height. Marlboro Plaza is probably one of the taller buildings in Ward 7.

@SE Jerome... You make a great point about churches and organizations on this side of town that own property and are just sitting on it.

@LuvinDC... SE Jerome is actually a very articulate person. I don't take him insults at me personally.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Dec 24, 2010 3:02 pm • link • report

Ms. V,
Are you refering to Marbury Plaza? Either way, I do get your point. Thank you for clarifying the height restriction in Ward 7 for me.

by Ward 7 Citizen on Dec 24, 2010 10:30 pm • link • report

@Ward 7 Citizen.... of course... I had Marlboro House on Naylor Road on my brain when I was writing.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Dec 24, 2010 11:33 pm • link • report

at Ms. V. @ nonetheless to the nutsin, I don't mean no direct disrespect. Thanx for talkin about our side of the city from the inside out. Most people who want to be bout bout it for the southside dont know what is and fake the funk from the outside in. Thanks for keeping it informed & funky and 4 all your grindin it out out on the grind. Peace & elbow grease from hustlin.

by SE Jerome on Dec 25, 2010 2:34 am • link • report

Thanks for this thoughtful post. While East of the River communities tend to be lower scale than downtown or Mid City, Minnesota Ave. Metro station and Minn. Av. & Benning has pretty big plans in the works. It's the only Regional Center east of the River in the General Land Use Map. I'm sure that's been revised with the Homeland Security HQ at St. E's. Other Metro stations like Benning and Capitol Heights also have potential for neighborhood and multi-neighborhood lower scale, respectively. The 4 Metro stations (counting Capitol Hts) in Far NE give this area a lot to work with, though most of the neighborhoods will remain single family with some small apartment buildings. The city has done quite a lot of planning for the area in the last few years. See http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/In+Your+Neighborhood/Wards/Ward+7/Small+Area+Plans+&+Studies. The Deanwood Plan covers most of Far NE and addresses the question of focusing growth around Metro stations and other lower scale nodes.

by ccort on Dec 26, 2010 6:57 pm • link • report

im buying a beautiful rowhouse in Anacostia for under $130K. its a great friendly neighborhood and i hope it stays that way and gets some restaurants too.
for young peole who cannot afford a house anywhere else in the city this neighborhood is perfect. u have to spend time there to see how great it is- that isforthe naysayers.

by kooks on Dec 26, 2010 7:30 pm • link • report

@Ward 7 Resident: To clarify, the federal height limit does apply East of the River, as everywhere else in the District. However, in almost all parts of the District including EoR, it is the zoning that is more restrictive, not the absolute height limit. Therefore, buildings are the height they are because of other factors including economic demand and community pressure, not the federal limits.

by David Alpert on Dec 27, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

SE Jerome and Rich make some of the best points. One of SE Jerome's points in particular deserves to be reproduced:

"I say all that to say that the Southside streets are all chopped up and that’s why yungins be getting chopped up. One ways, back-cuts in cuts, unpaved alleys, our streets are where murderers can and do lurk."

While neither SE Jerome nor Rich said this explicitly, one of the main points I draw from their comments is that one of the biggest issues facing East of the River is the lack of complete streets, a policy whose implementation is not necessarily reliant on having a street grid. Taking a page (or rather, the first 4 chapters focused solely on sidewalks, and then some) from Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," the issue of sidewalks, and complete streets more broadly, has HUGE impacts on safety and overall prosperity. In one anecdote talking about the falsehood that children are safer playing in suburban public parks than they are on urban streets (a well planned, complete street that has homes and apartments with windows/balconies/porches actually facing the street), she talks about the number of adult eyes on the street. These adults, some of them from the neighborhood, many of them just strangers passing through, didn't have their eyes on the children because they were particularly concerned about them, but because the street's design lent itself to that kind of visibility. At one point, she recalls counting something like 12 children playing in the street in front of her house, all within eyesight of about 14 or more adults at any given time, many of them passersby from other parts of town. Said strangers, along with some residents of the street, made swift work of a scuffle between the children over a bag of candy.

Now, the density of her Greenwich Village neighborhood in NYC, compared to the much lower densities found East of the River, is not really an issue here. Those children weren't safe because the neighborhood was dense (see Jane Jacobs' eye-opening critiques of even the most subtle screw-ups - which make a huge difference - in the design of high-density public housing projects). Overall neighborhood safety is an issue East of the River in large part due to the fact that the built environment there is insular, as SE Jerome pointed out: lacking in adequate sidewalks, mixed-use zoning, businesses and homes oriented toward the street, etc.). As Rich pointed out, it's too easy to get caught up with density as the best or most desirable solution to the challenges faced by those living East of the River.

by Kenney on Dec 27, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report

If Jane Jacobs intervened now to break up a fight among kids, she'd likely get beaten herself or worse. Further irony is how few eyes on the street remain in Jacob's old neighborhood because it's super expensive to live in.

by Fritz on Dec 27, 2010 4:17 pm • link • report

@ Fritz...Haha, true! But violent behavior, by urban and suburban youth alike, is in no small way due to the deficiencies in street design described by SE Jerome. It's amazing the type of turnaround - in safety, local economy, etc. - one can see by just focusing in on these seemingly small details.

And of course, so sad what the Village has become. Another page out of Jane Jacobs, in concise, simplified form: too many rich people in one area = decline, too many poor people in one area = decline. Jacobs' quaintly prosperous and diverse lower/mid Manhattan is no more. Fortunately, hope resides in Harlem, Bronx, Brooklyn etc., but I wouldn't take it for granted.

by Kenney on Dec 27, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report

I read the comments and I am in between. I live in Ward 7 right in the middle of Minn/Benn where the action has been brewing for a while. I believe that there are a lot of positives to our not having the "U street" type of row houses. We do have the typical row houses of DC, just so you know. More of the Petworth style. But anyhoo. The fact that we have row houses, single family houses and townhomes should attract the crowd we need. Young singles and new families. Now we just need the development. Similar to what we have been promised at the corner of Minn/Benn as "Park 7". Think about it, Ward 7 has the most green space in the city. We have the most parks and open space. Once properly addressed, we can better market ourselves using our parks easy walk-ability to attract families. If City Interests ever revamps the East of the River shopping center, like they say they are going to do, we will be unstoppable. Middle income families will be able to shop, walk around and we certainly have more space than Capital Hill to host the neighborhood baseball and soccer games! In addition, based on our close proximity to 495,295 AND 395 you can get almost anywhere in the city in 20 min. Really, I have tried it. I have even walked to my job on Capital Hill, in 20 min!(If we could get a pedestrian bridge from east capital to the bridge I could jog it in less. Hint Hint). You can get to the airport to pick up your family in 20 min and get them home in time to see the kiddies play soccer and return home for the family barbeque in the back yard. You know, the thing they don't have on the houses on U street! LOL.
Also, can you imagine the awesome dog parks we will have.
By the way, does anyone have any information on when the redevelopment of the East of the River shopping center is supposed to start? Thanks.

by Lady Elle on Dec 28, 2010 8:20 am • link • report

I agree with the idea that lumping all discussions about East of the River challenges into one isn't necessarily discussion friendly. The areas of historic anacostia, upcoming Sheridan Station, et. al are all in play. Once DHS enters, a healthy portion of the n'hoods challenges will be met and overcome. It will be a much forced and needed change. I also wage that many professionals will be attracted to these areas, (especially congress heights) as the area experiences its own minissaince.

There are reasons people enjoy living in Ledroit, Michigan Park, Fort Dupont, Hillcrest, et. al. Many times it seems the discussions about changing areas always falls on what "yuppies" want when they shouldn't always be the subjects of what development needs - hell I imagine that even "they" don't want to be a part of every discussion. The areas around the new DHS would benefit well from nice coffee shops, a sit down restaurant or two and I'm sure other things. It does NOT need to be a U Street.

Hey, another Ray's the steaks would be nice!!!

by HogWash on Dec 28, 2010 10:52 am • link • report

After taking a look at the "conceptual renderings" of the Walmart in Ward 7, let's just say that I do not know what to think. However, I will be at the meeting tomorrow or rather this evening. That is all I have to say for now.

by Ward 7 Citizen on Dec 29, 2010 12:58 am • link • report

@Anothernative,

"of course everyone wants walkability to the amenities"

This is just not true. You look at the way much of the suburbs has not only developed, but the direction it is currently taking, and its clear that there are a heck of a lot of people out there who want nothing to do with walking, bike lanes, or anything of the sort. For whatever growing popularity urbanism has in this country, there's still a tremendous amount of push-back from reactionaries, and those who are heavily invested in the suburban way of life. You're fooling yourself if you think that there aren't a sizeable minority in this city who aren't still operating in those old modes where "suburban" == "success".

by oboe on Dec 30, 2010 9:30 am • link • report

@SE Jerome:

Thanks for the great insight--seriously.

Though I notice your literary conceit (e.g. "dem" "da" "dese", etc...) started to flag there at the end. That's not a bad thing. When not even the author can keep it up, you know it's time to reevaluate. Just sayin'.

:)

by oboe on Dec 30, 2010 9:38 am • link • report

Ward 8 and neighboring PG are ripe for denser development. It just makes sense considering HOT lanes are going up on the western side of the Beltway, HOV lanes run almost halfway to Fredericksburg and Frederick, and the construction of the Metro silver line expansion and the ICC.

Did you see the green roofs and walls (literally) on the proposed Homeland Security buildings? Wow, and in Ward 8 no less. After decades of hardly anything new, its nice to see construction cranes in that area.

by kevin on Dec 31, 2010 1:55 am • link • report

Did anyone see the Washington Post list of what's in and out for new year 2011? It lists H Street as out and Congress Heights as in. How's that for a sign of change?

by Lady Elle on Dec 31, 2010 9:35 am • link • report