13 Comment

  • The same developer is working on projects in Bloomingdale (one a pop-up, the other a renovated single family home) and both have had stop work orders.

  • Well it sure is ugly….

  • I live on the street. We never had signs up. 1400 Taylor has a development project and signs are up there from neighbors

  • I live on the street. We never had signs up. 1400 Taylor has a development project and signs are up there from neighbors who oppose it. This is the third or fourth stop work order on 1422. Neighbors remain mostly united against the project due to it blocking solar installments and other reasons. Owners are the Hofgards of great falls, Virginia. Truly heinous people.

  • Also, we are under no illusion of winning. We want to stop these kinds of unplanned developments for other poor neighbors.

    Finally, the development is three units, not four.

  • Who is the developer? (I am interested particularly about the pop up in Bloomingdale)

  • This pop up looks awful…In my opinion most of them tend to be because developers rarely put any thought into maintaining the general fabric, charm and style of dc’s historic neighborhoods. I’ve noticed since I started following POP that a lot of people tend to push back on or respond negatively to people who comment on aesthetics, but it’s impractical to believe that when someone makes an investment in a home, that the neighborhood/street’s aesthetics don’t play a factor. Moreover, I tend to believe that 20-30 years from now, people will wonder why there weren’t more building restrictions re when and how vertical row home additions can be constructed. Just my 2 cents…I would be super annoyed if I owned a home on this street.

    • If what you say is true, there should be evidence that a pop-up on a block lowers the value of other homes on that block. Do you have any such evidence?

  • This particular conversion from a family-sized house to 3 small units not large enough for most families with children is the poster child for the negative consequences of developments being able to fall between gaps in antiquated zoning rules that don’t recognize issues such as solar rights/easements and the public value of single family home zones in bringing stability to neighborhoods. On top on that, this development has repeatedly disrespected neighbors as well as the laws and requirements governing the construction. We need to be strategic and keep up the pressure so that development that increases density in our neighborhoods is not done haphazardly nor accomplished in a manner that disrespects neighbors’ investments that not only benefit them but also benefit the public generally. I.e., it’s in the public interest for us to invest in solar energy and the government should make that easier, not harder nor burden it’s utilization.

    • Solar rights? If you don’t want someone to build a structure over an existing building adjacent to your property due to solar panels you chose to install you should buy the air space.

      • +1. This, this is the answer.
        I grew up in an area where locals banded together to purchase the development rights to agricultural land that they felt was essential to regional aesthetics. This gave retiring farmers the money they were due, but preserved the use under the next buyer. If people are opposed to pop-ups, then they should purchase the air rights from sellers, preserving the aesthetics but acknowledging the value of that space and compensating them accordingly. A home w/ out air rights will also sell for less, and will be less desirable to developers, possibly preserving a margin of affordability and neighborliness.

  • Really happy to hear this. Up to now, the design and execution of this project has looked awful and the developer has acted like a real jerk.

Comments are closed.