tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post4897500974535819539..comments2024-03-25T18:50:15.135-04:00Comments on DCmud - The Urban Real Estate Digest of Washington DC: Mixed-use: A Safe Way to Go in Tenleytown?Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08295461340042242438noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-90825074012739371432011-05-21T07:41:37.213-04:002011-05-21T07:41:37.213-04:00Condos? I'd bet rental.Condos? I'd bet rental.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-5511132678749791652011-05-21T06:58:43.400-04:002011-05-21T06:58:43.400-04:00to 10:30
If it is part of the neighborhood agreem...to 10:30<br /><br />If it is part of the neighborhood agreement, and part of the condo sales agreements, then everyone knows what they are getting into, so there shouldn't be any issues 5 years hence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-9385326625369378172011-05-20T14:48:52.284-04:002011-05-20T14:48:52.284-04:00Nobody (except maybe the residential developer) wi...Nobody (except maybe the residential developer) wins if the project isn't done well. Current residents want change that makes their already very nice neighborhood better. Safeway wants a change that makes their (by now pretty substandard) store more attractive. There's lots of common ground there. And,frankly, the interests of future residents aren't that different from the interests of current residents. They won't want to spent forever looking for parking or to find themselves living on top of a grocery store that's failing because it's a hassle to shop there compared to other alternatives. <br /><br />Mixed-use buildings are high-stakes, especially when you mix retail with residential, because the residential property is generally more valuable and retail tends to be trendier/more ephemeral. Safeway will be locked into whatever they do on this site for a long time, so they should plan wisely. And their goal should be something that works -- not something that exemplifies the planning paradigm du jour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-42982588125976950202011-05-20T14:21:29.314-04:002011-05-20T14:21:29.314-04:00The nice thing about anonymous comments if you are...The nice thing about anonymous comments if you are anti-development is that you "win" no matter what Safeway does. If they do lots of parking, you oppose based on the traffic the development will generate. If they don't do lots of parking, you oppose based on how much parking in the neighborhood there will be or, if that doesn't happen, on philosophical grounds because it just isn't fair to the condo dwellers that bought their condos knowing about RPP restrictions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-17826928421514233142011-05-20T12:05:53.913-04:002011-05-20T12:05:53.913-04:00"If you don't, buy an acre in Bethesda so..."If you don't, buy an acre in Bethesda so you don't have to deal with other people."<br /><br />Bethesda offers a good template for how to deal with dense, in-fill development that backs up against single family residential areas. Looks at Edgemoor across from Bethesda Row: 24/7 residential parking restrictions and (sometimes physical) traffic restrictions. Bethesda Row provides plenty of off-street parking and its 2 blocks from the Metro; downtown Bethesda is far more of a "city" than Tenleytown/AU Park.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-25247085603886224572011-05-20T11:09:13.708-04:002011-05-20T11:09:13.708-04:00Safeway will have to determine its requirements an...Safeway will have to determine its requirements and the developer will have to determine requirements for the residential portion of the plan.<br /><br />At the end of the day, there is probably high demand for no parking, some zip car and a Capital Bike Share station, but that would be drawing a different client base than 1-2 parking spots per unit.<br /><br />I would also assume that any of the townhouse residences being built, if sold as single family homes, would have parking under their houses within the parking structure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-35020239265715302342011-05-20T10:53:04.031-04:002011-05-20T10:53:04.031-04:00I'm sure Pete's would like it to remain a ...I'm sure Pete's would like it to remain a place where people who come to eat won't find it difficult to park. But if you add 150 new households a block away and don't provide adequate parking for them, that's going to be a problem.<br /><br />The need to provide adequate parking rather than to rely on the street is recognized in the context of GDS; it's even more true with respect to residential development (because home is the car's at rest position -- whereas the demands visitors (to schools, restaurants, etc) place on parking infrastructure is subject to more churn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-24639100300955986202011-05-20T10:38:27.064-04:002011-05-20T10:38:27.064-04:00The streets are not crowded there, I've parked...The streets are not crowded there, I've parked there many times to go to Pete's. But busy streets should be expected when you live in an urban center, near Metro. If you don't, buy an acre in Bethesda so you don't have to deal with other people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-24294175987917310032011-05-20T10:30:16.505-04:002011-05-20T10:30:16.505-04:00While I understand the logic behind restricting RP...While I understand the logic behind restricting RPPs for new construction, I wonder if it's really a solution. After a couple of years, you have new residents who, at least in multi-family buildings, can't add parking to their homes. Why should they be denied on street parking when single-family homeowners (who often could build a parking pad) aren't? Especially when you get to the point where it's no longer clear that that SF homeowners were here first, it seems wrong to deny the apartment/condo dwellers access to a shared resource that everyone else in the neighborhood gets. And what about things like visitor parking permits? Every household is supposed to get one. And presumably apartment/condo dwellers have visitors -- even if there's a logic behind denying them RPPs, shouldn't they be entitled to VPPs?. And, of course, once you have a VPP you can use it just like an RPP. At any rate, the new neighbors will be voters and taxpayers too and presumably won't find it difficult to organize around this kind of issue. As the recent budget hearing demonstrated,even SG CMs cave to pressure on the parking issue. <br /><br />So from a philosophical, practical, and political standpoint, I think that the denial of RPPs is a fix that is sustainable just long enough to get the developer off the hook but is unlikely to address or solve the underlying problem. New residential construction should have to provide adequate parking on site. And how much is adequate is a question that should be answered contextually and empirically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-48959369033023601492011-05-20T10:09:39.049-04:002011-05-20T10:09:39.049-04:00As someone who would support a mixed-use developme...As someone who would support a mixed-use development at this site, I would also support RPP restrictions for dwellers and their guests. The impact on the existing conditions in the neighborhood should be negligible, and it would be up to the developer and the community to work together on such a solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-62725832493772698932011-05-20T10:03:46.906-04:002011-05-20T10:03:46.906-04:00Here's the test for anyone who supports buildi...Here's the test for anyone who supports building less off-street parking for in-fill residential development, contending that people will take transit. Ask whether the developer then should covenant that the development will not be eligible for RPP parking, as a couple of PUDs in Northwest have agreed. (This is what Arlington also does, if a developer builds less than zoning minimums because the development is in a "transit oriented zone.") If the answer is no, then it's clear that more parking is required, it's just being shifted from being borne by the developer/owner onto already crowded streets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-86372409257722919842011-05-20T07:27:06.465-04:002011-05-20T07:27:06.465-04:00No one is for building more parking then necessary...No one is for building more parking then necessary -- the question is how much is necessary. Yes, Tenleytown and Friendship Heights DC residents own fewer cars per household than their economic cohort just across the border in MD. But in this economic bracket, a high percentage (even of renters) do own cars. <br /><br />To the extent that they drive less, they park (at home) more. Parking is one source of traffic problems in that area. The challenge is to provide adequate parking at the site for the number of cars it attracts (store and residences) and to handle access to the site in a way that doesn't create bottlenecks and minimizes conflicts.<br /><br />These aren't insoluble problems -- but if you blow them off from the beginning, you're more likely to encounter opposition (and to produce a project that doesn't work as well as it could).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-61585905795777969232011-05-20T07:03:47.474-04:002011-05-20T07:03:47.474-04:00@Anonymous 6:06 PM:
The Tenley NIMBYs/BANANAs mig...@Anonymous 6:06 PM:<br /><br />The Tenley NIMBYs/BANANAs might be full of vitriol but it is clear they lack even a basic knowledge about urban planning and transportation. Someone who pays considerably more to live within a ten minute walk of two metro stations is going to drive significantly less. This is self-selection, a concept not difficult to grasp to all but the most anti-growth zealots. <br /><br />Read Robert Cervero's study of this:<br /><br />http://www.uctc.net/papers/604.pdf<br /><br />I'd take his conclusions more seriously than the scare tactics of the hysterical anti-growth crowd. Underground parking for a building like this costs $30,000 - $40,000 per spot. Including more parking than is necessary will encourage not only more driving and more traffic but make housing less affordable for people who'd like to live in the neighborhood. Not that I'd expect the NIMBY crowd to be concerned about anything other than their very narrow self-interest, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-9877903859555675782011-05-20T06:33:29.397-04:002011-05-20T06:33:29.397-04:00Wow, that's seriously fallacious logic. The o...Wow, that's seriously fallacious logic. The overall population of the city or the traffic volume on a major road doesn't really tell you whether any particular block can absorb an additional 150+ households without causing traffic problems in the immediate vicinity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-59535524090979565182011-05-20T06:18:07.101-04:002011-05-20T06:18:07.101-04:00Oh for Pete's sake, enough about traffic. Wisc...Oh for Pete's sake, enough about traffic. Wisconsin get 100,000 cars a day, in a city with > 600k people, and we have to study to see if the roads can hold another 100 people? Worse would be if they move to the suburbs and have to drive that much farther, they still fill our roads, people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-90262758671545309772011-05-19T18:06:06.189-04:002011-05-19T18:06:06.189-04:00Safeway's an existing use and I don't thin...Safeway's an existing use and I don't think anyone is concerned about the traffic it generates -- the benefit of having a nearby grocery store compensates for that. <br /><br />The traffic that people will be concerned about will be that generated by 150+ new units of housing in that block (and, perhaps, by more changes to the grid (GDS's campus already obstructs it in that area).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-84884058212235874582011-05-19T16:03:37.053-04:002011-05-19T16:03:37.053-04:00@Anonymous 1:55 PM
"So whether this Safeway ...@Anonymous 1:55 PM<br /><br />"So whether this Safeway succeeds or fails may well depend on whether it has sufficient parking (and how convenient/inexpensive that parking is)."<br /><br />I hope the opponents of this project don't use traffic then as one of the reasons to oppose this. The more parking that is available and the cheaper it is, the more people will drive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-81012752993929469422011-05-19T15:53:43.606-04:002011-05-19T15:53:43.606-04:00We agree with Amy. Opponents of mixed use developm...We agree with Amy. Opponents of <a href="http://www.monarchrh.com/" rel="nofollow">mixed use development</a> sites are rarely the majority, they are simply the loudest. If the rest of us can be vocal enough to be heard, then there shouldn't be a problem in regards to championing the good that mixed-use can bring to the table.Monarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07743409867601094794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-35034503791705516932011-05-19T14:48:53.210-04:002011-05-19T14:48:53.210-04:00@Anonymous 2:44 PM
Why isn't this the right p...@Anonymous 2:44 PM<br /><br />Why isn't this the right post? I wasn't the one who posted about streetcars on this forum but if you look at the example of the H Street corridor, streetcars (or other rail transit) and development are diretly related and encoruage each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-77373640558509433972011-05-19T14:44:54.836-04:002011-05-19T14:44:54.836-04:00I don’t think that this is the right thread for a ...I don’t think that this is the right thread for a discussion of streetcars. Nonetheless, the characterization in the 2:21 pm post of the concerns of people who question whether we should request streetcars on Wisconsin Avenue is inaccurate. If you look at the discussion on the Tenleytown listserve (which should not be repeated here), it is clear that much of the concern about streetcars is a concern that streetcars will result in inferior transit, not that it will provide better transit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-53661401924082817882011-05-19T14:43:43.696-04:002011-05-19T14:43:43.696-04:00@Anonymous 1:55 PM
"So whether this Safeway s...@Anonymous 1:55 PM<br />"So whether this Safeway succeeds or fails may well depend on whether it has sufficient parking (and how convenient/inexpensive that parking is)."<br /><br />I certainly hope the opponents of this don't use traffic as a reason to try to block this development. It is well-established that ample, cheap, parking will lead to more driving.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-42881790970036440962011-05-19T14:36:13.355-04:002011-05-19T14:36:13.355-04:00@Anonymous 2:30 PM
And it's 2011, nearly five...@Anonymous 2:30 PM<br /><br />And it's 2011, nearly five years after and the 30s buses still remain subject to delays and reliability issues. <br /><br />http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9981/consolidate-bus-stops-to-speed-up-the-30s-line/<br /><br />The Red and Orange lines are also more crowded than ever and will be even more so once the Silver Line to Tysons and Dulles opens. A Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will provide important region-wide transit benefits, even if it encourages (gasp!!) a few 6-8 story infill buildings in Tenley or Friendship Heights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-14781072013103982302011-05-19T14:30:18.401-04:002011-05-19T14:30:18.401-04:00Ben, Your statement that the 30s buses are the th...Ben, Your statement that the 30s buses are the third most-delayed of the routes examined is based on a 2005 study. That study recommended a comprehensive study of the 30s line which was conducted in 2007, and implementation of those recommendations for restructuring the 30s line began in 2008.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-55153262816891806272011-05-19T14:21:46.767-04:002011-05-19T14:21:46.767-04:00@Anonymous 1:28 PM
DDOT currently has no plans fo...@Anonymous 1:28 PM<br /><br />DDOT currently has no plans for a Wisconsin Avenue streetcar, there is no funding for this infrastructure investment at present time, and for most of the next decade DDOT is focused on building streetcars in other parts of the Distict. <br /><br />It seems like it is the fear that better transit, that a Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will be part of, will attract more development in this corridor is the real thing motivating opponents of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22305958.post-67373983330167122492011-05-19T14:16:19.469-04:002011-05-19T14:16:19.469-04:00@Anonymous 1:28 PM
The 30s bus is adequate for no...@Anonymous 1:28 PM<br /><br />The 30s bus is adequate for now but we know the Washington region is expected to grow by 2M people in the coming decades, as noted by the Greater Washington 2050 report. A Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will attract many of the wealthy discretionary riders who live in this part of the District who would otherwise not take the bus and would drive instead.<br /><br />It is also beyond dispute that streetcars do a much better job of attracting economic development. Although the Safeway development will be welcomed, there is the potential for a lot more infill development along the Wisconsin Avenue corridor. A Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will help serve as a catalyst for this development. It will bring the District tens of millions of dollars each year in additional property and sales taxes. <br /><br />As you've noted in my post from the Tenley listserve, a Wisconsin Avenue streetcar will also provide far more reliable transportation than the 30s buses. The 2005 DC Transit Alternatives Analysis report found the 30s buses to be the third most-delayed of all the routes examined. A Wisconsin Avenue streetcar route with dedicated median lanes will not be at the mercy of the traffic flow and other vehicles, reducing travel times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com