Petworth Eyesore on New Hampshire Ave Gets Coverage from the Washington Post

Washington Post catches on to third floor atrocities. Sadly, PoP doesn’t get a mention. Thanks to a reader for the tip.

Read the full article here.

My favorite quote from the owner (Cornish): “As for aesthetics, Cornish said the building, when it is complete, will be far superior to the dilapidated, vacant property he bought last year for $425,000. “To each his own,” he said of those who object to such additions. “If they don’t like it, they should have gone and bought it themselves.”

You can read my original post from April here.

10 Comment

  • You wuz robbed, PoP! Nobody gives credit anymore… but we know you’re the real source.

  • How shocking to learn that the property owner is kind of a dick.

  • A dick with no taste. And you are wrong Cornish, we do have a say when you create visual pollution. It’s the shoddiest, ugliest shanty in Petworth.

  • Woohoo! We’re in the big time now, Pop. A front page Post article from your posts and my photos (if you don’t mind sharing the love).

  • way to go, PoP! typical of a post writer to nick the credit…

    you were kinda in there though.

    for me, you were the PoP in
    “pop-up”, for whatever that’s worth. ;o)

  • We all know who put the PoP in pop-up!

  • most folks at the post know that schwartzman does this a lot. he’s just a greedy wanna-be writer.

    no worries PoP. it’s all documented here. you and wayan kicked some butt.

    schwartz dude will eventually be weeded out of a tentatively serious news journal.

    great work PoP and Wayan!

  • oh… i cc’d schwartz-dork’s boss on this blog. i encourage others to do the same.

  • Ok there. Very kind of you but it’s all good. It was a great article that I’m happy was written. No need to disparage the author. Thanks for your support.

  • I would suggest changing the zoning regulations at least to require a hearing on a proposed pop-up. At least neighbors would be given a chance to be heard before instead of after the fact.

    But I’m very wary of historic districts. And the Post article mentions one of the main reasons for me — windows. I bought my house 4 1/2 years ago, a fixer-upper if you ever saw one. I couldn’t afford any of the recently renovated houses, and I still can’t afford to hire anyone to do all the work that the house still requires. Just like many of my neighbors, I do what I can little by little, year after year, as time and money become available.

    And bit by bit, some of the “tired-looking” houses in the neighborhood (including mine) are being fixed up. But even the lowest-priced metal-or-vinyl-or-whatever windows have been out of reach for me so far, so I’ve lived with the crap I’ve got. Some historic areas require windows to be replaced with period-appropriate windows, usually wood, which are priced completely out of reach. If that happened, my crappy windows would have to stay forever. Other bit-by-bit fixes that my neighbors are doing might have to stop too if the new rules make them unaffordable.

    There are a lot of ramifications to having a historic district with rules. The new rules might indeed stop travesties like these pop-ups but they might also stifle regular, ordinary, affordable, and (to me) acceptable fixes that are improving the look of the area.

Comments are closed.