Dear PoPville – Diamond Cab Building to be Redeveloped in Logan Circle?

11th and Rhode Island Ave, NW

“Dear PoPville,

The building is slated to be built literally in my backyard on the east side of Logan Circle. My neighbors and I are all very receptive to the development — any neighbor will be better than Diamond Cab — but it seems like every zoning variance the developer is requesting is simply to make more money and increase density, squeezing an extra 10% – 20% of space and efficiency at the loss of neighborhood parking, permeable ground cover, etc.

Zoning regulations exist for a reason, and neighbors have come to a consensus that they should enforced.

There are also environmental concerns related to the developer’s desire to not fully remediate the contaminated soils here (the site has had ~9 underground tanks on it over the years). The developer basically says that it would be an undue burden to remove these soils, and the deeper they dig, the more contamination they expect to find. It seems to me that the if a developer knows they’re purchasing a contaminated site, then they really ought to plan to clean it up, especially if they’re planning on creating below-grade residences. The local ANC and DC agencies should look out for the public good in making sure a structure than may stand for 5 or more decades is not built on soil that is known to contain volatile gasoline and diesel residues.

This event / hearing is on Wednesday night at 7pm at the Washington Plaza and we’d encourage all interested neighbors and community members to attend.”

From momsinlogancircle:

I wanted to let fellow neighbors and parents know about plans to develop the Diamond Cab property on the corner of 11th and Rhode Island Ave. The developer, CAS Riegler, is proposing to build a 4+ story building with 40-50 condo units. They are requesting an area variance for 13 parking spaces as opposed to the 20-25 that are legally required, which will make parking extremely difficult in that vicinity. In addition, the building will have 2 retail stores adding to the parking burden. There are additional area variances and special exceptions the developer is requesting.

If you are concerned about parking in Logan and the precedence this will set for other developments in the area please attend the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2F, Community Development Committee (CDC) Meeting on Wednesday, September 25 at 7PM at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

Rendering of proposed bldg at 1101 Rhode Island

103 Comment

  • anyone know the timeline for development here?

  • A couple blocks to the metro and walking distance to downtown and everything you could possibly want, including Zipcar and Car2Go…I don’t think they need 25 parking spots. Smart growth means less space wasted on storing cars.

    • Or more cars parking on the street.

      This is not Manhattan, the limited metro infrastructure and all the ancillary programs–Bikeshare and Car2Go–are not enough to make this a car-less city IMO.

      • Yes, there is enough to be a carless city. Sell your car and you’ll find out.

        25 spaces is absurd, in my opinion.

      • If I sell my car, how do I get to my job in Ft. Mead?

        Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia do not have the unifying transportation plans for me to get from Logan to non-metro lines on a daily basis. Sure, if you live, work and play here you don’t need a car–I don’t use mine on most weekends. There are so many jobs in the burbs due to Washington’s longstanding poor relationship with big business and crapy governance–yes it’s getting better–that we are not prepared to exist without the reach of MD and VA and the Metro doesn’t take you everywhere. If you just moved here in the last 10 years and you’ve never left NW, H Street, Arlington or Bethesda you don’t get how limited someone is without a car.

        • +1,000. People who think that the DC region is ready to give up cars are utterly delusional. Not everybody who lives in DC has easy and convenient transit between their home and their job, or other places they need to be.

          • Sure-not everyone is ready/able to and no one is seriously asking anyone to give up their cars if they need one (though I know people are). All people are saying that there is a large number of people (I know many high income young single lawyers who don’t have cars) in DC that can easily live here without cars (because of their jobs, where they live, work, & play) such that there is enough demand for these buildings that do not contain much/if any parking in Logan/Dupont/downtown areas. Many people can’t live here without a car , but many people can live car-free (or light, like me, park on the street, drive every two weeks to goto burbs or golfing) in DC

        • I’m so tired of people who don’t live in the District proper complaining about non-District issues. I gave up my car when I moved here 3 years ago, because I didn’t need it. People who actually live here, know you don’t need a car. I’m sorry if you live in some far off part of the surrounding area, but what does that have to do with me or other District residents. If you work in VA or MD, then go live there. No one is forcing you to live in DC. The metro and metrobuses takes you practically everywhere in the District, including H Street, Southeast, Southwest, etc. But I find that the people complaining about where the metro is not taking them, are the same ones who scoff at the idea of taking a metrobus to these same locations.

          • +100000000000

          • I think the original comment wasn’t about living in a far-flung part of the District, but about the fact that it can be difficult even for people living in centrally-located parts of the District to get to jobs in certain suburbs or exurbs that are major job hubs (hence, the Logan Circle-to-Ft. Meade) example. Personally, I’m 100% car-free and a big advocate for public transportation…but I don’t think it helps the cause to be antagonistic and dismissive about other people’s situations. True, no one is “forcing” a Ft. Meade worker to live in DC…but so what? Maybe they like living in the District. Maybe they live in the District because it’s closer to their partner’s DC-based job. By your logic, if you don’t like all the complaining of car-using residents, no one is forcing *you* to live in the District either. Arguing about who “should” or “shouldn’t” live here is counterproductive, and distracts from the bigger issue, which is how the DC-MD-VA region can provide better transit options to bring workers from the suburbs into DC as well as take DC residents into the suburbs for their jobs. Compared to the average American metro area, we have a wealth of public transportation options, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to improve upon. (I should add that I’m speaking generally–regarding the Ft. Meade example specifically, I’ve never had to commute there, so I don’t know what, if any, public transit options might be available.)

          • I sort of agree with you to the extent that I wish more people from MD and VA would make an effort to use public transit. But let’s not pretend that this area is something it’s not. As someone who lives in DC, is 90% car free, and uses every available transit option – this is not New York. It’s still a pain to get around outside the core of DC. Some of the bus lines are reliable (especially during rush hour), but most of them are not. Where I live, I typically have to wait 45 or more minutes if I want to take the bus outside of rush hour. That doesn’t count as a viable permanent transit option. The Metro is a disaster on the weekends, and it’s not always practical to bike. I wish we didn’t have people living so far from where they work, but with the way we’ve developed, there’s really no way to avoid it. So how do we work within these constraints?

        • Alicia, You don’t get the economics of the region. Do you really think that DC can function without the support of MD and VA? The metro is only here because the states wanted them. Welcome to DC and glad you chose to drop your car when you got here, but that wasn’t doable just 5 years ago–it still isn’t for the fact that the suburbs are still wealthier than DC proper and that money drives the economy in the district. I moved to Logan back in 2000 after college when no one wanted to live here. I commuted to Ft. Mead and put up with the crime and shitty mess that DC was. I welcomed the Whole Foods, the new bars, restaurants and high rises. All most of us neighbors are saying is, we want the building to have parking. We built our lives and build the community–you just walked into our somewhat more established neighborhood and you want me to leave? Wow.

          • Anon, I never said anything about DC not relying on the help of the burbs for it’s economic success. For the purposes of the Ft. Meade comment, I was talking about how irrelevant the burbs are to the city dwellers who don’t have to leave the District. We can have a conversation about the economics another day, but I’m talking about just getting around the city and how easy it is to do that if you really tried. From where I sit most people in the District who have cars do not even know the real extent of the transportation options offered by the city. Metrobuses go through all corners of this city, even if no train goes there. Unless you’ve actually lived in this city without a car, or you study transportation in DC, I doubt you know what you are talking about when it comes to DC transportation options. All I’m saying is that everyone has a choice…a choice of where to live…a choice of what they want to put up with. Like you said, you chose to move to Logan Circle when it wasn’t a “desirebale”
            place to live. You chose to commute to Ft. Mead. You choose to continue living in the District. Well, welcome to DC 2013, where the city is doing the right thing by making it a less car centric place to live. So, now you and everyone else has a choice to make. Does the new DC still fit into what works for you and your life, or doesn’t it? If the lack of parking is a problem, you have lots of other choices of places to live, or you can choose to get rid of your car, or you can choose to use metro and metrobuses. There’s a difference between want and need. You want parking for the building, but cars aren’t needed to live here, so why should more parking be added when it’s not needed. Let’s stop focusing on what is convenient for us an individuals and think of the greater needs of a growing city.

          • I agree that some people who live in DC may need or just want a car, and that’s fine, but as the for the comment that going carless “just 5 years ago” “wasn’t doable” – I’ve lived in DC for 20 years without a car. It’s certainly doable.

          • I am the same person who made the comments about commuting to Ft. Mead.

            I get your point Alicia, if you live, work and play here. However, your seemingly inflexibility to accommodate people who exist different from you is what troubles me with your argument. I am all for more bike lanes, Car2Go options, etc. I use them. Yes, I choose to live here and commute and my husband buses to work on K Street everyday. The problem with your argument that you have yet to address, is that everyone who lives in DC does not work in DC. The City does not exist solely the way you live. I am not one of a handful of people who work in MD or VA and rely on cars. If we were to exile the workers in the suburbs from living in DC, the city would not work. You seem to believe it would, that is the fallacy with your argument and why economics is always part of these conversations….even about parking.

  • Why the parking concern? If you live here you walk or bike everywhere. Metro is a short walk as is downtown. No shortage of resturants, coffee shops, night clubs. If I lived here I would not own a car.

    • As we continue to let developers build up this city, we have to have expectations and enforce the rules for development. The folks building this city up are making a ton of money, and they are going to take it and leave, because they know they are building crap, and creating new problems that will exist for decades. Take the flooding in Bloomingdale – caused by over development, variances, and lack of proper code enforcement. There is too much burden on the system, and some of the basements that are flooding were illegally constructed. Separately, Parking will be a serious problem, because people are going to continue to see cars as a necessity. Even if you can walk to your neighborhood grocery store and your job, there are many places that are beyond reach, and many great things in the metro area that are not easily accessible. Car sharing is novel, but not really a good deal yet.

      • Car sharing works. Period. It is no longer “novel” in DC. Maybe in Topeka it is “novel” but definitely not here.

      • Anon3, do you have a car?

      • Did development really cause the flooding in bloomingdale or was it the lack of maintenance and modernization of our city’s critical infrastructure?

        Car sharing totally works. My two siblings in I live in cities of varying size (Seattle, London and DC) none of us has cars but use car sharing, rentals and public transport to get around just fine.

        I am with you on soil remediation – as the development will disturb the settlement and alter the drainage situation potentially resulting in these contaminants migrating to neighbors. I’d suggest you argue that point and then compromise on a more reasonable parking balance – 18 spots, 2 car share and a green roof to mitigate the loss of permeable surfaces.

      • The flooding in bloomingdale was not a result of overdevelopment.

      • The flooding in bloomingdale is due to undersized pipes for the amount of rainfall and too much impervious cover. Flushing toilets, dishashwashers, basement apartments etc. have absolutely nothing to do with it – this is a common myth. The amount of water flowing into the system from this is negligible as DC water’s own reports show. the problem is a combined system that cannot handle rainwater in a storm – the volume of which is astronomical compared to a small amount of flow at any one time from human use. This development replaces a parking lot (i.e. impermeable surface) so there is no net impact on the stormwater system. If the neighborhood wants to be a positive influence on the development instead of just nimby’s push them to collect the rainwater from the roof – this would make the development a net positive in this regard.

      • “Novel”? I’ve been a member of Zipcar for over 10 years – it’s not a novelty.

  • Hi I’m the NIMBY in this case, but I actually support this development. My neighbors and I see every variance request the developer is making is minimizing construction costs and maximizing the number of units at the expense of good of the neighborhood.

    We are happy for developer to make their pile of loot, but we want to the conform to DC current zoning laws, which were intended to preserve a neighborhood character and integrity. If they need to make one or two few basement apartments to provide sufficient parking, so be it. An even concern is that they want to build on 90% of the lot as opposed to 75%. You don’t live in these small houses immediately adjacent, but we recognize a 50′ behemoth is inevitable. We just don’t want them to be any bigger than the law allows.

    • I don’t think there is anything unreasonable about your request. The next time I see a project where a developer does not request every possible variance available to make every bit of money possible, I suspect it will not be in DC.

    • Hey Nimby,

      I understand wanting it comply with current zoning codes, but the zoning codes are about to change. Office of Planning has decided that the 50 year experiment with parking minimums was a failure and they will drastically reduce the parking requirements in this central, transit-rich neighborhood. Please don’t let concern for use of parking get in the way of much-needed development in this spot. Let’s build more spaces for people, not cars.

      • Hello! The data from my neighborhood (Petworth) shows that the parking space requirements are too high. They just aren’t all used. But, it is very much up to the neighbnorhood to focus on how much green space they want, and what the LEED standards for the development should be. Aren’t they required to clean up the tanks and surrounding soil?

    • “50′ behemoth”
      Grab the children and run for the hills! The behemoth is after us!!!
      FYI – the “behemoth” is less than twice the height of the “small row houses” on Rhode Island. And, it is separated from the houses by an alley. Unless it grows tentacles that stretch across the alley, I think you’ll survive this attack. Rhode Island Ave. appears to be at least 100′ wide at 11th. A 50′ tall building on a 100′ wide street is inconsequential (unless you’ve adopted the mindset of the doofuses on Wallach Place). 90% lot occupancy at this busy intersection is totally reasonable.
      I don’t care about you losing “your” free car storage on the street. In fact, I’m sick of you storing your vehicle on public property and expecting to do so for free and without any inconvenience. If you’ve converted your back yard to outdoor living space, and choose to park your car on the street (and then complain about losing parking space), congratulations, you are the worst form of urban dweller. Convert it back to parking, or sell your car. If you don’t have a back yard to store your beloved car, go rent a damn space somewhere and stop your whining. Stop expecting to make your car storage problem a concern for the rest of us.
      If you really want the building to improve the stormwater problem in the district, make damn sure the building has stormwater retention for a 3″ rainfall. I believe that is the new standard in Philly. The new building will thus be a huge improvement over the current impervious eyesore.

    • Do you live in the watermelon house?

      • Initiating NIMBY here. We don’t live in the watermelon house, but right next door.

        I was perhaps injudicious in calling it a ‘behemoth’, but it is a great vocab word for my 4-year-old. A 50′ structure will be built, and based on some of the other issues, it is likely to end up on our property line, though not in the current renderings which would be something like a 12′ wall. (Some of the issues that might effect the practical configure include building a shallow parking ramp into a partially below-grade garage to feed from the narrow alley because developer does not want to excavate because of contaminated soils).

        We are a three person family. One car. My wife auto commutes to Virginia and I bike my child everyday to our DCPS in another neighborhood and then either multi-modal it clients downtown or in Bethesda. We have lived in this property for several years and are in this city to stay. We are engaged in our community and we look forward to welcoming new neighbors (not that we had anything against Diamond Cab and it auto repair business.)

        We do not think the BZA variance process exists to cut construction costs and increase the number and types of units the developer can sell, which is the aim of each of the 5 area variances a 1 special exemption (for height/roof structures).

        (Also check out the “melrose place” open corridors to the 2nd to 5th floors that the developer is selling as an amenity…not sure how we feel about those either, but that’s for another discussion outside of zoning!).

        • So, your next concern is that residents in this new building will have some open community space and they may be able to see your property or you will be able to see them? After the very long list of complaints and concerns from the Wallsch Street residents were reviewed, it came down to one simple fear. They feared people. Period. Ate you fearful of people living closer to you?

  • While I have to admit I’m not fully looped in, my initial reaction to reading this is that you are a few blocks away from metro stations and major bus lines. We need to be encouraging less parking development not more.

  • This is a longwinded way of saying “I don’t want to lose my free on-street parking.”

  • The op just wants current laws enforced.
    Maybe you want laws to change but there’s no reason to insult the op.

  • The environmental cleanup seems like a HUGE issue to me.

  • I love the watermelon house on Q street.

    I am very sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns about environmental remediation, and the 75 vs 90% ground coverage.

    I am less concerned about the parking issue, because the building is directly across the street from the shuttered Shaw JHS, which is a lot of street frontage that doesn’t have residents. In fact, the diagonal parking in the neighborhood provides a lot more street parking than would otherwise be available.

    This debate would be a be more informed if we had good data on what percentage of people who have bought/rented in similar buildings (on 14th Street, e.g.) have registered cars in DC. There are a lot of reasonable people on both sides of the argument, and there are reasons that an individual or household might decide to go carfree or car-lite, or not. But without the numbers, we’re just arguing ideologies.

  • Environmental remediation is an issue that should be addressed. The parking? I have little to no sympathy. This is the way DC is headed. Glad to see that something is happening on this corner. Might the laundromat across the street be next?

  • Most of you people on here don’t own cars and yes you turn your nose at us that do. Keep in mind not all of DC residents can get around strictly on public transportation and/or bikes. We have jobs that have us consistently moving throughout the day to meetings and events that would be impossible to manage without a car. Your “idea” of less cars sounds great but it is not sound. Especially in the new Logan Circle. The restaurant /bar increase alone has already made parking impossible here and that doesn’t include all of the unfinished development (without sufficient parking) happening right now.

    • Have no problem with car ownership – I have one myself. It’s the expectation of easy, free parking in public space for your personal vehicle at the expense of building enough housing to stop rents from continually skyrocketing due to unmet demand that is the problem.

      • Street parking is certainly not free for dc residents.

        • It’s basically free ($72/year + $35 for an RPP), compared to the $2400/year or so you’d pay for a private parking spot in these hoods where parking is an issue. Well worth the 10-15 min I have to drive around most of the time to find a spot (sure I’ve had a few 30-45 min drive around’s every few months or so, but def worth it).

      • lindz0722

        I also have a car and the argument that everyone wants free, easy parking really bugs me. I pay nearly $200/month for a garage spot right now, so money isn’t the issue. I’d be happy to pay for parking “in a public space”, whether that’s via meters, more expensive RPP fees, whatever. But there are just not enough parking SPOTS.

        As far as building to meet demand and keep rents down, that would be nice. I don’t think this 40-50 unit condo building is going to aid that problem, though.

        • If you have a car just for groceries then you are an idiot. I can’t “rethink” my car. It is required for my job.

    • Please recognize that you are in the minority. Nobody is trying to make cars illegal. We’re trying to encourage those who have a legitimate alternatives to choose car-sharing or public transportation, so that fitting more cars into the city does not become an obstacle to fitting more people in the city.

    • I own a car and I park on the street. I think it’s far too cheap and I expect to walk 6 blocks home if I park at an inopportune time. The zoning laws are over 50 years old, the metro is less than 35 years old. The zoning laws are well into a revision which will drastically reduce the parking minimum and I am all for it, it will reflect the massive changes that have occurred in this city since their implementation. And it might start to make drivers, like me, rethink their car ownership by having to deal with the realities of parking in a growing, transit oriented city.

      And really, who drives to go shopping in that area? And who expects to parking to do it? Other than Whole Foods (which I wouldn’t bother with their parking anyway) I know I’m not parking anywhere for shopping in Logan or downtown. Is this really an expectation people have?

      • Sure, once you’re parked in our neighbourhood, as a car owner, I would never drive to the grocery store or out to dinner – I walk/bike everywhere. But, again, we’re fogetting about people, like me, who HAVE to drive to work outside of DC where public transportataion is decades away from being actually efficient in terms of time spent using it and cost effective for the user. As a homeowner in Logan, where “tourists” from VA/MD are already taking up all of our parking spaces when they come to our ‘hood to eat/drink, I strongly objext developing more properties in a residential area that come with retail space but not enough parking options to go along with it.

        • Then you need to lobby your ANC rep for stricter parking restrictions on your block.
          I guess I’m finding it hard to be all that sympathetic. When I worked outside the District and had only street parking in Adams Morgan, my life revolved around parking. But I accepted that as the price of having a car in Adams Morgan (and got on a waiting list for off-street parking).
          When I bought my next place (a house), I made sure to get one with off-street parking. Street parking in the neighborhood is abundant right now, but I don’t think it will remain this way forever.

    • complety agree!

  • Anyone know if there are any redevelopment plans for the old Shaw Jr. High School campus across the street? I heard it’s been mothballed by the city. Such a shame, considering its great location.

    • My understanding is that they are keeping it with hopes to reopen he school in a few years. If they do decide to surplus it, the city has to offer it to charter schools first, per the law.

  • Parking minimums may somewhat reduce the availability of onstreet parking, but these minimums also have huge costs to the neighborhood because they dramatically drive up the costs for the building, which makes the rents skyrocket.

    Parking Minimums = less housing affordability.

    • Also the idea that the parking minimum zoning code is “current” is laughable. It’s something straight out of the urban code of 1960s white flight.

    • I know plenty of developers and trust me the rent prices will be the same with or without the parking. Less parking just means more money in the developer. Your are extremely delusional to think otherwise.

      • Definitely true. It may change the cost to build but it won’t change the cost that places are sold/rented at.

      • So we should tie any variance granted to an offsetting amenity, should as the provision of a Capital Bikeshare station or car sharing spaces paid for by the developer.

      • This may be true within a specific development project (though I doubt it — don’t parking spaces go for $300-$400/month in Logan?). For the city as a whole, requiring parking reduces the supply of dwelling units and increases prices.

  • “The building is slated to be built *literally* in my backyard on the east side of Logan Circle”

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

  • “Zoning regulations exist for a reason, and neighbors have come to a consensus that they should enforced.” They sure do, and part of the regulations includes a process through which variances from those regulations can be applied for, and granted. A variance is an enforcement of the zoning regulations, so please don’t try and act like this developer is getting away with something. (Especially with the evil intent to ‘make more money” – isn’t the community interested in making more money, by opposing something they think will hurt their property values? Similar motivation.)

    There’s a reason why some issues can only be allowed via the variance process, and only after a public hearing. You and your neighbors seemed involved; by all means, rally the folks, go to the hearing, and make your opinions heard

  • I don’t see anything in here about “underground” residences. A full remediation is actually not expected. Often “brown field” sites are mitigated with a hard top surface (such as a basketball court). Unless they have underground storage tanks, you can’t assume there are any major environmental concerns. As far as parking, each underground space costs approximately 40k so all that gets added to the cost of the building. If you all insist on this amount of parking AND full remediation beyond what is legally required the ONLY way for the developer to make the numbers work is to increase density. Or just no develop it. I say this as both a DC resident and an urban planner.

  • Who are you people who can either spend hours taking public transportation or spend hours looking for parking?

    I want to be able to do what I want to do in an efficient manner. I dont have a problem paying more for it – but to make things hard on everyone because you think more people should bike or take public transportation… thats just plain stupid.

    Hell yes, I want easy access to public parking. I agree its under priced – but its a convenience I’m willing to pay for and I dont think we should arbitrarily limit supply just to achieve some liberal wet dream fantasy of a public policy goal.

    Every building should be mandated to have enough parking to meet demand. Our streets should all have as many parking spots as possible. And we should pay for them in a way that users bear the brunt of the cost, but that non-users have skin in the game because it benefits them too (because easy parking keeps money inside DC which provides an array of economic benefits and tax revenue). Sure, right now, street parking is being heavily subsidized out of general treasury funds – but the answer to that isnt legislating ridiculous limits on parking or making a hot commodity even more limited (and therefore, actually raising the value of spots and limiting supply – decreasing the economic benefits realized through easy convenient parking). Adjust the price upwards and let people pay for convenience, which we all are willing to do in some way or another (which is why CVS can have higher prices than walmart and still thrive).

    • If there’s so much demand for parking in these new buildings, then why did the developer of my condo building have to eventually just give the unsold parking spaces to the condo association? Simple answer: because the demand wasn’t there and they weren’t able to sell them! The point is that the current zoning regulations relating to parking are outdated and much too generous for a dense, urban area. This is why the Zoning Commission is granting parking variances left and right, because they realize the existing code isn’t feasible. They’ve even granted variances to allow a new residential building to have NO parking! So whoever is trying to fight the developer over a few measly parking spaces is fighting an uphill battle in my opinion…

  • There are not enough highpaying jobs in DC to support the extremely high real estate prices. So for those of us who have to make a living outside of DC but have lived in the District for dacades, parking is still a necessary evil but allowing developers to make ridiculous profits by OVERdeveloping this neighbourhood is criminal.

    • Re. “There are not enough highpaying jobs in DC to support the extremely high real estate prices.” — the market seems to think otherwise.
      (It’s baffling to me, but I guess there are more lawyers, lobbyists, etc. in this city than I tend to think there are.)

      • I’m not a lawyer or a lobbyist – some of us choose very different professions that unfortnately only pay well outside of the city b/c companies choose to be located in VA/MD where corporate rent is much much cheaper than DC – believe me, I prefer not to sit in traffic for 2 hours each day communiting to work. But I want to live where I’ve been living since late ’90 before the rich hipsters started to move and the area became “cool”.

        • See, I don’t get this argument. I don’t understand why those of us who have organized our lives around not having cars should subsidize — via rent — those who haven’t. If you want parking, pay for a parking spot. Parking is valuable — I think we all agree. So people who want it should pay for it!

          • Happy to pay for my parking, but please point me to this magical place that rents out parking spots within a few blocks from where we live ? Most places in logan are row homes with no place to build on a multi-car garages with spaces for rent.

          • the same reason you have to subsidize other people’s children education, war, paved roads, emergency responders, farm subsidies. because we live in a SOCIETY.

            learn to deal with that.

          • Anonymous 2:31 pm, your statement relies on the assumption that we perceive street parking as a public good to which everyone is entitled. And that thinking is beginning to change.
            Oh, and the reason we’re stuck with farm subsidies isn’t because farms are perceived as a public good, but because big agribusiness has deep pockets and major clout in Congress as a result.

        • Neighborhoods change.
          The neighborhood where you live used to have much less demand for street parking.
          Now that demand has increased.
          If you want to continue to live in Logan Circle and work in the ‘burbs, that’s your choice. Street parking is first come, first served. Doesn’t matter if you work outside the city. Doesn’t matter if you have kids.
          If you believe that having a car is essential for you and if you don’t want to move, you rent a parking space somewhere, or (if viable) you can add a parking space to your property.
          When I bought a house in D.C., I made sure to buy one with off-street parking. Parking in my neighborhood isn’t all that competitive right now, but I suspect it will be in the future.

    • Interesting that DC ranks as the highest income earners in the country.

  • Not sure where the posters live who say parking is plentiful in this location. If I’m home after 6:45 there’s usually nothing left.

    And not all of us are childless 20 somethings. There are plenty of families who need cars to get to jobs and schools.

  • Love the NIMBYs…. NOT….

    Anyone complaining about the surface area developed should realize they are replacing a broken slabs of concrete and asphalt with an actual plan that is required to include drainage. And if anyone seriously wants to keep a broken down garage with questionable car repair services, I’d like to hear an argument how the current situation could possibly be better for the neighborhood over new development.

  • Does anyone have a comment on the original issue at hand – the contaminated soil that the developer is not willing to ‘clean’? Per the original post: “There are also environmental concerns related to the developer’s desire to not fully remediate the contaminated soils here (the site has had ~9 underground tanks on it over the years)….The local ANC and DC agencies should look out for the public good in making sure a structure than may stand for 5 or more decades is not built on soil that is known to contain volatile gasoline and diesel residues”. Retail space / height of building / parking are definitely big issues but feel like we can actually make a difference in making the developer clean this mess up before they start building.

  • the rabidly anti car people are almost as bad as the rabidly pro car people.
    both extremist nut cases that think they know how the rest of us should live.

    • Eh, the difference is that the car people aren’t trying to delete a diminishing asset. They’re just saying build a bigger garage new building people. This anti-car front seems to want to remove cars from DC society….not sure why even after reading all of this.

Comments are closed.