18 Comment

  • The murals look out of place with all of the surrounding new construction.

  • Kinda sad that a nice old single family home had to be turned into yet more “luxury Condos”. I wish anything older than 75 years was protected as historical. We may laugh now, but our kids will be crying in 100 years at what we’ve altered/lost.

    • I live a stone’s throw from it. The single-family home was lost long ago. This was an Asian American LEAD community center or something, and it was falling down. Literally. During construction there was a large collapse. It was also an eyesore, and completely out of character with the rest of the buildings in the area. The new structure will be a much better fit. And the new owners will probably mow the grass.

    • that’s fair if you want to the city to stay small, economically poor, and have few opportunities. we can preserve all things as they once were, but there is a price for that too. the best solution, imho, is to find a balance. not every thing old needs to be preserved. how we make that call, i’m not sure. an architectural review committee? but how invasive to property owners should we be?

      • Actually historic preservation raises property values, so I’m not sure what this economically poor argument is all about. see Georgetown for an example. And even you Opal have to admit that most new “architecture” is garbage.

        • hell yes i admit that it’s mostly horrible! i absolutely love the old architecture in dc. but when people say that ALL old architecture should be preserved, i can’t agree with that.

          and when i say economically poor, and admittedly i am no expert, i mean in terms of jobs and the demand for amenities, which brings in new business, a broader tax base, more activity. what was the economy of georgetown before the historical designation? i’m willing to bet that it was fairly healthy, no? what was the average income in georgetown prior to designation, and what is it in columbia heights?

          i know that in my neighborhood there is the belief that an increase in density will attract more business, and the existing buildings are somewhat insufficient for many desirable stores.

  • Will be awesome when one of those condo dwellers in the new section decides to expose their brick only to find strand board behind the drywall.

  • loving it so far.

  • We are very excited about this project. The units are going to have some great floor plans, the location is fantastic and they will ready in the next few months!

  • My first post was more of a “if you could have your cake and eat it too” post. I guess, I hope some of the smaller structures that aren’t in offical historic districts can survive.

    I agree in increased Density, but it doesn’t mean ever single smaller building should be converted to large multi-unit condos. This might not be the best example, but it should be considered

    • i also wish we could have our cake and eat it too. and i too am saddened when i see sfh’s chopped up. the community developed by rowhouses is superb, but condos make things a bit more distancing.

      and it’s a shame when you have areas in dc that are still way underdeveloped.
      it’s definitely a hard balancing issue.

  • I agree in concept with the person waxing poetic about the loss of the use of countless thousands of DC rowhomes as SFH’s.

    I am not saying the alternative is to let them remain in awful shape, there are tons of monied folk in this town who are buying these homes to live in, they are just buying them at a slower rate than the RE mavens who cut them up into 3,4,5 condos.

    At the end of the day, more people and a larger property tax base is good for everyone, it is just a shame that these grand old homes are no longer used for the reason they were built.

    Cept mine 🙂

  • You know what they should have done? Picked up the old pile of bricks and rotting wood and transported it to your block for preservation.

    • Chill dude (dudet/). I think everyone (even I) agree that not every small home needs to be saved, but you gotta recognize there’s a cost to carving up smaller historic structures to build more condos?? Or don’t you because you thought this was the only option in this case?

      • Sorry, that came across a bit meaner than I intended… Yes, of course I realize that there’s a cost to not saving old structures. There was just nothing worth saving in this case.

  • I live behind this, and what I don’t like about it is that they built over a large backyard and took down at least one healthy tree. I agree with others that lament the need to pack in so many units into one building. This kind of density means a lot less green space. Worth the tradeoff? I don’t think they’re going to have a lawn to mow…

Comments are closed.