“Stop The Pop” Signs and More Controversial Plans

1400 block of Taylor St, NW

Just noticed these signs coming home yesterday on the 1400 block of Taylor Street, NW (a block away from the controversial pop up on Shepherd.) Their facebook page says:

“The redevelopment of single-family townhomes into multi-unit condos is a growing trend in DC. This controversial practice can have deep impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. Many residents feel they do not have a voice. Share your experiences and advice here!”

WAMU reported on the controversial plans for 1444 Taylor St, NW:

“The single-family home on Taylor Street was sold in August 2013 for $525,000 to Mubashir Khan, a developer hoping to expand it upwards and outwards with the intention of turning the rowhouse into a four-unit condo building. It would gain a third story, and with a new rear addition be twice the size it is now.”

It’s a really interesting story worth reading plus you can check a rendering there too.

Stay tuned.



87 Comment

  • That’s a nice-looking yard sign! Let’s see if the pop-up lovers can respond with one even better. What slogan should they adopt?

  • Yup, because a three-story apartment building is exactly the same thing as the 12-story tower on that sign.

    NIMBYs are scum.

  • Just a quick note – the last picture isn’t the house the neighbors are complaining about. It’s on the other end of the block. The house pictured was gutted over the summer and then progress has stopped.

  • An anonymous website, registered anonymously and tied to an anonymous Facebook page.

    What are they so afraid of is my question? People gave NADZ a tough time for not identifying themselves lets see if this goes both ways.

    I have little patience or respect for chicken sh*tdisturbers. By doing it behind the veil of anonymity you are doing nothing more than pushing propaganda at us.

    • Hop on the 16th St Heights or Petworth mailing lists – the people are right there. There’s no formal organizing committee or group, nor are they a shadowy industry-backed astroturf fund like NADZ. Just neighbors who are concerned about livability in their neighborhood. What a concept!

    • StopThePopDC.com was registered anonymously (which really is more of personal identity masking and not true anonymity, as the registration service knows exactly who purchased that domain name) because exposing your name, address, phone number and email address on the Internet registries is a risky idea. At best, you will have to deal with tons of spam mail/e-mail and telemarketers’ calls, at worst you are exposing highly personal information about yourself. I have no patience or respect for those who hurl insults like “chickensh*t disurbers” rather than taking 30 seconds to ask why something was done in a particular way.
      Come to our facebook page. Send a PM. If Facebook doesn’t hide it in the Other folder, you can ask anything you want about why the page was registered or set up the way it was.

  • Referencing the earlier downzoning in Lanier Heights that the ANC supported. This part of the city is zoned R-4. It gets pop ups. It gets additions. It gets basement dig outs. So, yeah, downzoning doesn’t stop rear/down/up additions.

  • Let’s oppose new housing. Let’s oppose additions to housing. Let’s oppose more than two units on a property. And then clutch our pearls about rising housings costs and gentrification.

    • binpetworth

      I don’t oppose pop-ups, new housing, or additions. What I do oppose is people who say these measures suddenly lead to more affordable housing, especially in the buildings/immediate neighborhoods that are getting these add-ons. How much do you want to bet the new condos in this building each sell for more than what the original price of the home?

      • LOL. I have to agree with binpetworth. You do know they usually buy these rowhomes at a low, low price (250k-300k in some neighborhoods if they need a complete gut job) and then turn around and sell EACH unit at 600-800k?!?! Yes, these developers totally care about affordable housing when they’re plunking down cash and beating out a family that maybe wanted to invest in that house and make their own. And then it’s a condo, not a house and they charge dumb condo fees of $150-$300.

        • justinbc

          I think your 250K-300K to 1.2M-1.6M is a bit of a stretch on actual reality, although I won’t deny they definitely make a substantial profit on these conversions. But their also private businesses, it’s their job to make profits. In most cases though, the condo list price on one of the renovated units is still less than what a renovated single rowhome would go for in a given neighborhood, so to that end they are taking a shell of an unused home and making it more “affordable” than those single homes around them, for two families, rather than one. It’s not affordable housing in the traditional sense, but on a comparative basis it’s at least something.

        • Your numbers for the cost of the building acquistion are way too low. There’s no way shells are going for $250K. The subject house of this post, for example, was purchased for $525K.

          • I am not saying that is always the case, but I have seen it. I have been shocked to go back and look at the purchase price of around 300k and then see they’re selling each unit for 700k. More realistic is 400k-500k, but still insane profit when you turn around and sell each unit for 600-800k. Of course, they’re allowed to profit. But it’s one of the reasons there aren’t “affordable” homes in the city.

    • When you say “clutch our pearls”, do you actually mean “profit”?

  • Tsar of Truxton

    Don’t the “luxury” condos in these pop-ups actually drive up the property values of the neighbors? If so, who cares if when you look up, your neighbors house is ugly. I have no problem with limiting the height of pop-ups to prevent things like the V street catastrophe, but one floor above the rest is really not an issue.

    • Why be concerned if you look up and see an ugly building next door? Are you serious? Who wants to live next to some ugly monstrosity?

      Really, it’s not the “up” part of the popups that bother most folks, it’s the pop-BACK. By right under R-4 zoning developers can build to within 20 feet of the rear of the property, which can seriously hard light and views.

      • 20 feet is in no way the rule. In an R-4 zone like this, you can develop up to 60% of the land with a minimum of 20 feet rear yard. The difference is subtle but important.

      • R4 Zoning “By Rights” also allows you to turn your house in to a Sanitarium

    • Popup can be done very tastefully, there are several in Bloomingdale (adams, flagler and Bryant) done by one company and they were done very well. Of course some of the chronic complainers in the neighborhood didn’t like them and complained but couldn’t stop them.

      • Are you talking about the Beastly pop-ups? They are viewed by most of the neighbors on Flagler as awful. Only the one on Bryant is given some tacit acceptance. Still it is derided because it is a POP-UP!

        I have entered into this debate before and let’s be frank. Anyone with any architectural sense and integrity understands that pop-ups and density eventually will erode a neighborhood’s value. Frankly, bluntly…they are simply not permitted in the wealthy, and generally, whiter areas in the city to the west and North, like Georgetown. Capitol Hill is another protected area. There are NO GREAT architectural distinctions between the victorians and colonial rowhouses in Georgetown and those in Bloomingdale! This is about economic power, interest, and money!!

        If Pop-ups were such a great idea, they would do them in Georgetown. But in Georgetown, the neighborhood and the civic association have the power not just stop a contractor who would attempt it, to often economically destroy them!! A pop-up is not an addition. It is an ugly derision. There have been new house built in historic neighborhood like Shaw’s Logan Circle (yes, Logan Circle is part of Shaw, for those of you who have a problem being including in a neighborhood below Boundary Street). They are far from pop-ups.

        In short, POP-UPs are allowed by greedy contractors and city employees in neighborhoods where the citizenry don’t have the economic and/or political clout to stop it. How else does one explain a historic designation cross all of Georgetown, but not Shaw? LeDroit Park, but not Bloomingdale or Eckington?

        While I have problems with the Anti-bellum South, Richmond, Charlotte, Savannah have done a far better job in preserving the integrity and beauty of their buildings than the nation’s capitol, and we will rue the day will allowed these ignorant greedy people to destroy these treasures. Much like many now regret the razing of the Chinatown rowhouses to build the D.C. first convention center between 9 and 11th Streets NW.

        Drive around Richmond by VCU, they have not just saved the buildings, they zealously save the lead glass-wooden windows.

        I, however, have the misfortunate of dwelling in a city of architecturally ignorant, the greedy, rushing to rip the diamond-designed slate off a 100 year-old A-frame roof, POP-UP it, and staple-nail on some 30-year, asphalt singles. All Praise the new!!

        POP-up lovers aver that Pop-Haters are cavemen and Nimby-driven. Perhaps!? But we don’t wipe our butts with pages from a printed bible because we read it on a Kindle….

        Yes I resort to personal attacks…

  • justinbc

    Whenever I hear someone say they don’t have a voice it makes me think they really mean to say “things aren’t going the way I want them to go, even though I keep shouting about it”.

    • Or “why aren’t I allowed to infringe on my neighbor’s property rights? I know better than they do!”

    • Really who among us read the zoning by-laws before they purchased or rented their home? There is no transparency to the development process. Converting a single-family townhouse into 3 or 4 condos is a radical departure from the current neighborhood structure and, like many, I guess I always assumed there would be a public hearing. You have to go through a public hearing to get a liquor license, after all. By the time neighbors even know what is being planned, the horse is out of the barn. The property has been purchased, and the permits have started being issued. At that point it’s too late— DCRA has even let some pretty big violations slide because they would rather see the partial project get completed than for the project to be abandoned. So that sounds like having, at best, a wee tiny little voice.

      • Your complaints about DCRA are completely spot on. Between taking forever to issue permits then outsourcing most inspections to third parties, they’re really do fail both coming and going and there’s little transparency. It’s difficult to see plans (have to go down to the zoning office). The website doesn’t present data well. And when you actually apply for a permit, it takes forever for them just to look at your application (my neighbors were almost 3.5 months from application to receiving permits).

        That being said, I absolutely looked at the zoning and zoning by laws around my house before I purchased it. One other house we were interested in abutted a C-2-A lot to the south that only had a single story development on it. Within a couple of years it now has a 5 story apartment building and blocked basically all natural light to the house. We didn’t buy that house because we knew that was a possibility. Because we looked at a zoning map and the by-laws.

        The house we did buy has very large lots on the row and is zoned R-4. The largest lot is 2861 square feet with a 16 foot width. It’s large. We knew that by right it could be turned into 3 units and be about 100 feet long and 40 feet tall. You know what’s being built now? A 3-unit condo that’s about 100 feet long and ~35 feet tall. The houses in the rest of the row is between 40 and 50 feet long. It’s big and forboding and kinda ugly. But I knew it was a possibility. Why? Because I looked at a zoning map and read the by-laws before purchasing.

        I have no doubt when some of my neighbors sell they may have offers from developers and my 50 foot long, 25 foot tall house could be boxed in on both sides. You know how I know this? Because I read the zoning by-laws before I purchased the house.

        Our house shares an alley with a 22k square foot lot for sale that’s zoned C-2-A. I know a ~100 unit apartment building could go there. Or a retail development that creates noise and traffic. I know I’d have no say in most developments there. And I know that because I looked at a zoning map before I borrowed half a million dollars to purchase the property.

        • You looked at the zoning maps…got it after like the third time you said it. You sound like someone who would be A LOT happier in the ‘burbs with an HOA where you could complain to your neighbors that their grass is currently 1.5 inches and according to HOA bylaws it needs to be 0.75 inches!

          • That’s funny, because I had the exact opposite reaction. This person did his/her homework, knew the development potential surrounding his/her home, and made his/her decision accordingly (see the part where they passed on a house due to zoning) instead of complaining about things after the fact and wailing that they had no idea upward development might occur. At no point is there any statement that the poster tried to dictate what others can do with their property, unlike the subject of this post. FWIW, I definitely looked at the zoning around my house when buying my first property.

          • justinbc

            Yeah, someone sounds salty about not doing their own homework.

        • Anonymous 5:50 p.m., was this your first real estate purchase?

      • justinbc

        “Really who among us read the zoning by-laws before they purchased or rented their home?”
        Well at least you’re admitting your ignorance / lack of due diligence, and that’s what’s causing you to rely on others to solve your problem for you after it’s already too late.

        • I’m sure you read every page of the iTunes terms and conditions as well.

          • justinbc

            Irrelevant comment, as I’m not here complaining about iTunes policies. (And the fact that a $0.99 song doesn’t really equate to a $500k-$1M home purchase either.)

          • For $0.99 cents a song, it’s not a big deal – it’s not worth my time to read up on the arbitration clause and forum selection clause. But as I’ve said elsewhere, this is the largest financial transaction most of us will ever undertake – some additional due diligence should be taken.

        • I think it’s fantastic that so many people have researched zoning regulations before purchasing their homes. It’s not the norm among my friends, family or neighbors and while it sounds like it is more common than I had imagined, I’m not convinced that it is a widespread practice. But that is a lot of what we wanted to accomplish by creating the signs and the facebook page. We did not set out to change the way people buy homes, only to raise some awareness. Given the lively debate on this page, I’d say that it’s off to a good start. Knowledge is power.

      • “Really who among us read the zoning by-laws before they purchased or rented their home? ”

        I just keep reading this line and can’t stop shaking my head.

  • I don’t think pop-ups are necessarily a problem.

    Fugly pop-ups are. That infamous U St area pop-up is an architectural abortion. There ought to be some design principles to reduce the problem of fugly pop-ups while leaving in place the opportunity to pop up.

    In a city that can’t expand, we have a prime opportunity to develop by growing vertically. That means air rights and approval for pop-ups, taller buildings, etc. are an asset for the people of the city.

    Instead of just a blanket refusal to develop upward, we should be smart about it. In exchange for allowing developers access to that asset, we could insist on some broadly shared benefits. Like fees that we funnel into expanding affordable housing options or increased transit for a growing population.

    • justinbc

      And yet I’m sure there are people who see “The Ella” and think wow, that place looks cool, I want to live there. This is the problem when you try to legislate appearance.

      • Each of the upper units has been languishing on the market for close to a year now. At the very least, the pool of people who look at it and think “cool I want to live there” and those with enough funds to make it happen is really, really low.

      • I’m not so sure that anyone thinks the Ella looks cool. The “penthouse” of that building has been on the market for nearly a year and the price has already been cut at least twice. I just looked at the interior online and think it’s just as unattractive from the inside as it is from the outside. If someone did this on my own street, I would be the first person to launch a campaign against it even though I’m not categorically opposed to pop-ups.

        • 1013 V Street #2 has been on the market 243 days (pretty crazy in DC) and price has come down almost 100k, but not quite. I agree, even the inside is ugly.

        • justinbc

          As the poster above you points out, there may be a number of people who appreciate the design, but don’t have the necessary funds to be able to afford it (and that’s assuming it’s even a realistic market price).

  • Mushabir Khan!!! Beware of this developer. I live in one of his condos and it is some of the shabbiest, cheapest quality work you will ever find. How he gets through the permittting process is very questionable indeed. My garbage disposal was leaking shortly after I bought the place, and it turned out that his men glued the damned thing on instead of bolting it like you are supposed to. And that’s just the beginning. The hvac units were improperly installed in nearly every unit in our building, as were some of the windows. My back door was so screwy I had to replace it. Shall I go on???

  • Is there anyway to find a happy middle ground that allows popups as a useful way to create much needed housing in a growing city, but at the same time establish a review process to weed out some of the ugliest/poorly constructed popups.

  • So I just want to say a couple of things about 1444 Taylor St NW and Stop The Pop

    Several months back, a developer, Mubashir Khan came door to door asking people
    to sign a petition that would support adding an additional story to 1444 Taylor St NW.

    After asking several questions, he assured us that it would be sold as a single family
    unit and that would be it. The drawings he showed were of the front of the house and
    not showing the sides.

    For anyone who signed, he was giving $15 Target gift cards.

    After the conversation was finished, immediately went to the DCRA website and found that
    it was to be developed in to four condo units and essentially twice the size, the hold
    up was based on the shipsted-luce act.

    After doing some research on Mr Khan and other properties, his business practices have
    been fairly deceitful. So for the residents of Taylor St, he did not disclose they were
    building condo units, but just as a single family house.

    In other meetings he presented plans to the residents that were completely different to
    those that were submitted to the CFA (Comission of Fine Arts).

    If you actually look at the developer, he has had a number of run-ins with DCRA where he
    did not build to the specifications, building too tall, or demolishing parts that he had
    no right or permit to do.

    In the case of those on buchannan street, they caused damages to fire walls and such on
    neightboring houses where the neighbors were told they would have to pay the repairs themselves

    In the case of shepherd street, he has a STOP order because of the dangerous conditions the
    neighbor was left with, and his excuse of not knowing the rules has been used a number of
    times to the point where they’re not starting to work anymore.

    In terms of the “creating affordable housing”, well he took a $520,000 single family house
    and now wants to build it in to four condo units that will sell for approximately $400,000
    so he’s taken an 1,800 sqft house at $288 per square foot and turned it in to a condo that
    would be $440+ per square foot.

    The design itself is ugly, deviating away from a street which is all brick, to having a huge
    stucco addition. The developer has had a lot issues, and two on-going issues in the same locale
    also the deceitful practice, the fact that it wouldn’t add to any affordable housing etc

    That is why *I* oppose the 1444 Taylor St NW pop-up

    As for the “NIMBYs are scum” comment, I don’t see how that is helpful to any reasonable argument.
    It just drags it down to a base level mud-slinging, we can all differ on opinions, we can all show different facts and graphs and stick to the argument and remain civil.

    Because I for one don’t think people who are in favor of pop-ups are scum, they have their own reasoning, I just choose not to agree with them based on what i personally believe, but doesn’t make them bad people. At least, not in my eyes

    • “For anyone who signed, he was giving $15 Target gift cards.”
      To me, this screams “I’m lying to you”.

  • If you’re going to pursue the property rights argument you have to pursue it to the end — the right of developers to raze whole blocks to erect cheaply manufactured flatblocks and the right of your neighbor to open a pig farm and slaughterhouse on his property. You also have reject the idea that historically or simply aesthetically significant neighborhoods have no inherent value and that the city as a whole derives no benefit from any sort of development planning. You also have to disregard the idea of common responsibility for a common good.
    Basically, the popup advocates assert a right to piss into the drinking water for money, and then use that money to move on. How feel feel about that depends on how thirsty you are, I suppose.

    • I’m not arguing for zoning changes. I’m arguing for enforcing existing zoning regulations. And that allows development up to 65% of the land and 40 feet tall. That’s all.

    • “You also have reject the idea that historically or simply aesthetically significant neighborhoods have no inherent value”

      Should be “have inherent value,” strike the “no”

      • Heh, I was with you until that tidbit. Reread a bunch of times and the only thing I could assume was that there had to be a typo somewhere.

    • PDleftMtP

      I’m sorry, but this just isn’t at all right. One can, in fact, say that I don’t have a right to tell someone else how to use their property within the rules without saying there should be no rules at all. That’s not complicated. If you want to change the rules, fine – it’s a democracy – but there are problems with waiting until after someone buys a property to change the rules retroactively.

      If you don’t think the rules for your neighborhood are right, start trying to get them changed now.

    • I don’t think anyone is saying that people have unfettered rights to do whatever they want with their property. There is a system of regulation in place, and screaming that someone (a developer, ) who is undertaking a project that conforms to those standards is doing something wrong is misplaced.

      • Yes, there is a system of regulation in place. However, many of us believe that the existing regulations need to be changed.

  • As Captain James Tiberius Kirk would say,

  • As one of the neighbors on Taylor Street, I’ve got a dog in this race. One of the reasons I chose Taylor Street when buying my home was that I’d been on Girard Street for ages and seen the condo-itization of that neighborhood, and I didn’t like it. Different levels of population density offer potential residents lots of choice, but if I specifically chose a quieter, less dense neighborhood for my home, I should be able to speak up when something threatens that. I’ve been called a NIMBY repeatedly in the last couple of weeks but honestly why does wanting to preserve your quiet, close-knit community make you a target for a less-than-flattering phrase? Am I really scum or am I just feeling really heartbroken for the super nice neighbor lady who is now going to have to retire next to a concrete box when the adjacent property increases in size by 100% or more? And if the neighbors next door to me sell their house to a developer who wants to pop it up, what happens with my solar panels (subsidized in part by a grant from DC government)?

    When we on Taylor Street learned of the 1444 development, we were all pretty stunned at how liberal the current zoning regulations are, and how the overall process lacks transparency to those who are most directly affected. Developers in general are interested in making the most profit with the least spend– that is general Business 101– and their interests do not always mesh with those of the existing residents. But as a resident, you don’t even know what is happening on your block till it is already starting, and that is not the way it should be. Personally I think there is a common ground to be found somewhere, but as an individual resident, I don’t even know where to begin. One of the things we were hoping to do with the Facebook page was to get this topic out in the open, not just for Taylor Street but for anyone in the city. And maybe that will lead to some actual productive discussion rather than people shouting NIMBY SCUM at each other.

    As to the questions over why is the website registration anonymous, honestly that is how I set up all the domain names I register. Domain name registrations are a great way for every telemarketer and spammer to get your address, email and phone number. If the NADZ folks like giving that stuff over, be my guest. While I don’t own the stopThePopDC.com name (my husband does), I look after the facebook page. I reply to PM’s when Facebook doesn’t hide them in the Other folder.

    • I understand your frustration/discontent with what is happening. However, to respond to a couple of points:
      ” I’ve been called a NIMBY repeatedly in the last couple of weeks but honestly why does wanting to preserve your quiet, close-knit community make you a target for a less-than-flattering phrase?”
      I certainly don’t think you’re scum, and many of the other names are both unkind and inaccurate. But sorry, NIMBY is spot on – wanting to “preserve your quiet, close-knit community” is pretty much the definition of NIMBY. If you feel it’s a less than flattering phrase, that’s unfortunate . . . but it doesn’t make it inaccurate.
      “we were all pretty stunned at how liberal the current zoning regulations are, and how the overall process lacks transparency to those who are most directly affected.”
      These two statements make no sense together. The zoning of your neighborhood is perfectly transparent – you just never bothered to look it up before you purchased. And the argument “who does that?” is both incorrect and absurd – plenty of people confirm zoning regulations before purchasing, and everyone SHOULD. The purchase of a home it the largest financial transaction most of us will ever make. If you can’t be bothered to check on how that purchase could be impacted, don’t blame anyone else.
      To recap – your neighborhood is zoned R-4, which permits these kind of “improvements” as a matter of right. You didn’t apprise yourself of that fact when you purchased, and instead incorrectly ” assumed there would be a public hearing” even though the zoning regulations don’t require one. Now that someone wants avail himself of the existing regulations, you are aghast at the “lack of transparency.” You can be upset, sure – but to claim the process isn’t transparent is ridiculous. Transparency doesn’t mean that someone spoon-feeds you all the information that may possibly be relevant down the road – it means that you can get all the information if you choose to. You didn’t.

      • justinbc

        Yeah, what I find even more humorous, now having had the poster provide additional details, is that they purposely left an area where this was happening, and still didn’t even bother to look at the zoning of their new residence!

        • I was just going to follow up with this exact point. The poster wrote, “One of the reasons I chose Taylor Street when buying my home was that I’d been on Girard Street for ages and seen the condo-itization of that neighborhood, and I didn’t like it.” It seems to me that if the density of the neighborhood was a significant factor in the purchase, they would have checked out what the future development possibilities were before purchase. Not having done that, though, I don’t see a leg to stand on when complaining about by-right development.

  • The plans for 1444 Taylor St don’t look that bad to me. (At least the drawing which accompanies the WAMU article.) I think it helps that the building is at the end of the block. The most unsightly “pop ups” I have seen are the ones that stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of a row of houses.
    I am sure if I was the owner of a property in the immediate vicinity, especially the property next door, I would not be pleased about the plan. But is that enough to stop the whole project if it complies with the zoning regs and is constructed properly?

    • From my own opinion, I don’t particularly like the design, because it doesn’t fit in with the aesthetic of the street at all, and the designs don’t take in to account the surrounding Rock Creek Park, where they would have to cut down trees in order for the design to work.

      Part of the entire hold up on this house is because of the parkway and because the house borders on it, so that is why the CFA have to be involved. You can actually read the response to his initial plans here:

      The problem though as well,it’s not that I don’t believe the house keeps with the current aesthetics of the neighborhood, it’s that looking at the other projects, the developer has ran in to code-violations before, having STOP orders and such because he’s not followed his own designs.

      So even if I did think the designs were good, the developer himself has done nothing to convince me that he can be trusted. Not all pop-ups are bad, and not all developers are bad. I just don’t think that either the design or the developer are good in this situation.

    • The side view (view from the Park) of the Taylor Street project are not as flattering, and the view from the Park won’t be great, especially when you factor in how many trees are going to have to be cut down to make this thing happen. The view from the rear is especially depressing as it makes you really feel for the poor woman who has to live next to it– her back yard is going to really lose all of its charm– and that really does become a quality of life issue, even worse for a someone who is soon to retire and might not have a couple hundred grand laying around to move somewhere else or add her own addition.

      • That “poor woman” currently rents out the property next door to the proposed project and lives elsewhere. Odds are that laments about her financial condition are misplaced.

    • Personally, I would like to regulate pop-ups allover the city. I’m tired of greedy developers poping-up all over DC and turning townhouses into condos. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right and that’s why I think the regulation should be changed.

  • we have that happening on spring road, 1300 block. a developer purchase a row house and it putting in 5 condo’s. pop-up and over. still under construction so we shall see.

  • Is this a campaign against the Prince’s increasing dominance over the DC blogosphere?

  • FWIW, the house pictured at the bottom of this post is not the property everyone is talking about. I own this property. I have been waiting for approval from DCRA on a rear addition. I have a permit to build the rest of the property, but a building process timeline issue is preventing me from starting any work until the addition can be incorporated. There is NO POP UP PLANNED for this property pictured. I know that this may be off topic, but just thought I’d mention it to anyone who lives in the area and may have negative feelings towards this building.

  • I am all for pop ups. I totally disagree with the “anti-poppers” and would rather see a more dense neighborhood. I say make the pop-ups bigger. I might pop up my own house in the future.

Comments are closed.