23 Comment

  • Damn pop-ups!

  • I am so excited for this. The community tried to kill it because of the parking issues but its going through! that is the most underutilized corner/retail space in Park View right now. One block to metro!

    • By “kill it because of the parking issues” do you mean “tried to make the developers adhere to the existing rules on providing parking when constructing a new building”? I think developers should include parking in new buildings. Especially in this corridor, which is getting more crowded by the day. If the rules require too much parking, that’s one thing. But not providing any parking at all and expecting the neighborhood, which is heavily residential, to absorb the new traffic is not cool or smart.

      • Another problem is though developers are required to provide some parking (unless they get a variance), they’re not required to make that parking free for their residents. So many residents think they’re better off getting a Residential Parking Permit for a mere $35/year and joining the competition for street parking.

        • And even if they sign an agreement that they won’t be a burden on local parking, the rule won’t be enforced and goodbye neighborhood parking. Cheating builders.

          • Yes, Jack5, it’s the builder’s fault that DDOT, the DC government agency responsible for managing parking programs in the District, can’t come up with a way to flag RPP applications originating from addresses exempt from RPP eligibility.

          • @JS –

            We already know DC gov shortcomings… Those won’t change. It’s the builder’s fault for trying to overbuild a tiny plot of land to maximize their profits on an overdeveloped site. This are is a great area in DC because for ages it has had parking and you can see the sky. It’s greedy builders that will spoil a good thing with tall buildings and “micro unit” lies that create overpopulation and faulty quick construction that creates worthless over-congested and unsightly buildings that don’t account for existing residents and end up dragging down the local area economy and residents.

      • Not sure I follow. If there is no parking, won’t residents be *less* likely to get cars and therefore decrease traffic? Also, this is a block from Metro, so seems like the best place to do this.

        • +1
          With a good tdm I think this would be a great addition while encouraging people to use the ample transit options nearby

        • That is not the way it works. Many of the single family homes in this area do not have private parking, and yet many of those residents have cars. Also… Parking and traffic are two very different problems. Id say more people in DC keep their cars parked than drive them, but they still have cars for the times they need them, and you can bet that residents in new buildings will have cars too. You are right that because this location is near the metro it wont contribute much to the rush hour traffic problem, but you should not assume that parking will not be affected. The city needs to raise the fee from $35 to $200 or more (per year) to solve this problem.

        • No, this is not the case. People will have cars based on what their perceived needs/wants are, not whether there is available parking or not.

          • People choose to live in places that suite perceived needs/wants. If having a car is a need, you dont need to live by a metro.

        • It’s not the role of anyone to reduce people’s ability to own personal property. When your parents or friends visit from out of town they’ll need a parking space. That applies to almost everyone. Making space for cars is an inevitable need. This is not New York with train stops on every corner. I wish people would stop being so short sighted in thinking outside of their own personal view because they ride a bike or metro.

          When there’s a foot of snow on the ground, some people still need to get to work in VA or even Baltimore form DC.

          • It’s not about “people’s ability to own personal property.” It’s about the use of public space (the street) for parking that personal property.

          • Are you suggesting that people should drive when there’s a foot of snow out as a reason for more parking? Confused.

      • A few points in response to this. One, this is a block from the Metro and on a heavily-serviced bus corridor – this is an ideal site for exemptions from parking minimums. If we can’t do car-free development here, we can’t do car free development anywhere. Two, almost every house on the surrounding blocks has alley access that allows for rear parking. If people want to use their back yards for things other than parking, fine, but they then shouldn’t turn around and expect the city to subsidize their on-street parking and exclude competition for spots when they have private parking areas readily available.

        • Not providing parking spaces does not make a development “car free.”
          And I don’t see how the city is subsidizing my on street parking. My home came with a fenced in backyard. Where it sits in the alley makes it impossible to turn the backyard into a parking pad. Not to mention the difficulty of getting a permit from the city to do it. If anything, it is the developer’s decision to not incur the expense of creating parking that is being subsidized.
          There’s lots of room for development along Georgia Avenue and as the owner of a home whose value has increased significantly since I bought it 10 years ago, I welcome that development. But building multi-unit apartment buildings with the assumption that none of the residents will own cars is short-sighted and unfair to the homeowners that predate these developments.

      • Zoning rules usually require too much parking. Parking minimums are based on pseudo-scientific “standards” from the Texas Transportation Institute that say how much car traffic different business types demand.

        The provision of parking, especially free parking, actually encourages more car traffic. It lowers the cost of driving and leads to more car trips. Parking minimums in zoning laws also increase the cost of housing.

        So when you say you are worried about the neighborhood having to “absorb the new traffic,” this would only happen if the new development had parking in a way that encouraged more driving and car ownership.

        Also, since this place is a block from the metro, car ownership isn’t really required.

  • I’m thrilled! This plaza is one of those things I know is there, but I never notice is there.
    Goodbye surface parking lot! Hello building that interacts with the street and provides housing!

  • Awesome! Anyone know what’s going on with the new building at the corner of Georgia and Kenyon? Is anyone living in it yet? Still looks pretty empty.

  • Will there be a 7-11?

  • It is going to suck to live in that yellow house next door.

Comments are closed.