15 Comment

  • What’s the point of keeping one crappy facade? Some sort of tax abatement for preservation?

  • Those aren’t ‘new’ condos, but just a ‘renovation’ of the old warehouse. If they removed that wall they’d probably run afoul of setback restrictions.

  • The plan for this project was to have the above ground brick structure house the parking garage component of the building (with one of those NYC style car elevators inside). The condos will be built on top of this, so there won’t be someone facing the wall. Of course it was also my understanding that the whole warehouse structure was going to be preserved (seemed dumb to keep it all, seems dumber to keep just one wall).

  • Anyone know if the new building will cover up the balconies of the building next door?

    • From the mock-ups on the banners, it appears so. Too bad for the folks with balconies. Wonder what they’ll do with that blocked-in space?

      • I just talked to management in the building with the balconies and they said they’ll be covered so they’re turning them into breakfast nooks.

  • The elevation drawings on the website seem to show the red brick walls remaining. Perhaps the developer had to take down the north and south walls to make the new construction work? Maybe they’ll be rebuilding the “historic” walls with the old bricks.

  • I really wish the triangle had been allowed to develop as Mayor Williams original vision was with no historic preservation rules.

    This building was considered historic by one staffer and they forced the “preservation” of this warehouse. And what an absolute farce its turning into.

    This lot and the one next to it that is already developed where owned by two brothers. They could not agree on a price to make it one lot which is why you have two lots. The bigger development seems to have gambled that no one had enough money to develop the smaller lot and created those balconies.

    • You’re wrong. This building is not in a historic district. This building is not a designated landmark. This building is not subject to the historic preservation law. This building did not require review by HPRB. This building did not get reviewed by HPRB. Here, look for yourself: http://propertyquest.dc.gov.

      The old warehouse was built before current zoning regs and occupied 100% of the lot. If they had razed the building completely the current zoning would apply and limit the new building to 80% lot coverage. By keeping the wall, they are “renovating” the old building and their 100% lot coverage allowance is grandfathered in. By keeping that wall, their project is 20% bigger.

      You can call it a zoning loophole if you want, but it has nothing to do with historic preservation.

  • OOOh wow. What a wall it is!

Comments are closed.