56 Comment

  • don’t we already have a bldg called the Fehrenheit… it is right next to the Celsius.

    • Yes, and the ceilings in the Celsius are also 1.8 times higher than in the Fahrenheit.

  • Nice! Definitely an improvement on the standard glass box.

  • Not really keen on the red, but I like the other part of the building.

    • agreed, the red looks very unfinished to me, but I like the wood planks/lathes or whatever they’re called on the other side.

  • It’s a nice design, but they needed to included more parking. I believe they’re creating three parking spaces for a building with over 30 units and first floor retail.

    • no no no on parking. I couldn’t live in many buildings simply b/c it had so much parking that I had to get a space… and that meant I couldn’t afford to live there. I have no use for a parking space and I don’t want.

      • I agree that more parking should have been built. Not every resident will need/want parking, but there will be 31 units in this building, nearly all two-bedroom. They should have included at least enough spaces so that half the units could have one.

      • I’m not advocating for a massive parking garage. I just think it needed more than 3 spaces for the number of units.

      • I think this is pretty uncommon. Everyone I know who lives in a building in DC with parking has trouble getting parking there (i.e. wait list).

    • It’s three blocks from the metro and right on a very frequent bus line. Why on earth does it need so much parking?

      • Scrillin

        Because if it’s still RPP eligible, then it doesn’t matter that it’s close to Metro.

        For the price these places go for, their buyers/tenants don’t usually ditch the BMW 3 Series they’re moving with.

        That’s part of the reason why we have increasing numbers of cars on the roads of DC.

        • “For the price these places go for, their buyers/tenants don’t usually ditch the BMW 3 Series they’re moving with.”
          LOL that is so the type that is moving here. It’s like a bad trope, moving from Logan/U Street to Shaw and now north to GA Ave.

        • I don’t think these buildings are RPP eligible, or at least it’s not typical for them to be.

          I’m not even RPP eligible and I live in (and own) a rowhouse in Petworth. I have a NRP sticker.

          • The residents will be eligible to get RPPs. The 3900 block of Georgia Avenue is in the RPP database on the DDOT website.

        • I live in the adjacent 3 Tree Flats building. We have excess parking. So much so that anyone who is interested could go to the leasing office an rent a monthly parking space without actually living in the building. I’m sure residents of the Fahrenheit can take advantage of this. I personally prefer the metro, several buses that go down Gerogia Ave or the pletora of car2go’s that are usually parked outside. Just goes to show some people will ALWAYS complain about parking. No matter how unwarranted it is.

        • Most people don’t park expensive cars on the street. Most people who own expensive cars are happy to pay for an apartment that comes with a parking space. Most people who move into a building without parking don’t do so with the expectation that they’ll have multiple cars.

          • The thing is, though… when parking costs extra (rather than being free with the rental of an apartment), and when the building is eligible for RPP, most residents with cars will choose to park on the street rather than pay for parking.

          • Perhaps, then, the city shouldn’t be providing nearly-free parking to people who live on major transit corridors?

          • A building that is literally within steps of the metro doesn’t need parking. Part of the reason for living close to public transportation is so that you don’t need the extra expense of a car. BTW, this building looks very cool. Wood accents are especially nice.

          • +1 to this. RPP is the problem. Why people in the district consider themselves urban and car-lite but refuse to get rid of RPP is beyond me. If the district wants to rent out the curb space they should get market rates.

          • DC regs (Rule 11-2201) require new construction to provide off street parking. How much off street parking depends on number of factors.
            The condo construction around Meridian Hill Baptist (think that’s the name) on 16th St (Mt Pleasant) doesn’t have to provide off street parking because the church had a waiver, and apparently the waiver conveyed.

          • Accountering

            Seems like we should be fixing the RPP system, and not trying to impose massive costs on new residents. You can even make it revenue neutral. Raise the cost of RPP by $500/year, and increase the standard deduction by $4000 or whatever. People who own cars should be paying their way.

          • Why in the world should this be revenue neutral? Just raise the cost of RPP for all residents in dense neighborhoods and use the money for street repair–or even transit.

    • I dunno. this location is pretty transit-oriented already.

    • I wouldn’t live in a building without a spot, but that is just me. Not sure if this is something worth complaining about. Buildings can build parking spots if they choose. Plenty of people don’t want to own a car and they can live here.

      Also, love the red.

      • My comment above was meant to be here — buildings can’t always choose whether or not to build parking spaces.

        • Yeah, they’re required to have a certain minimum number of spaces per x units. They can apply for a waiver to provide less than the minimum.

      • I don’t know why it’s so difficult for some people to understand that there are other people who need, or just plain want to have a car.
        I commute to work on mass transit but drive my car to run errands on the weekend. I also use it to visit family out of state. Not everybody can or wants to organize their lives around mass transit and car sharing.

        • I think everyone gets that some people want cars, and a smaller group need them. But that doesn’t mean every single development in America needs to cater to that. Fully 97% of the country, and all but three or four cities, are entirely built around catering to car owners. So it’s okay for a small number of buildings on top of metro stations in a small trio of US cities to accommodate the carless and not worry so much about car-owners.

        • HaileUnlikely

          If you don’t want what they are selling/leasing, then don’t buy/rent it.

        • Accountering

          Excellent. You want/need a car. Don’t live in a building without parking.

  • samanda_bynes

    huh. looks pretty neat.

  • Condos or rentals? GA Ave is really coming along nicely.

    • I do believe they’re rentals. I agree with textdoc. I like the building, but could do without the red part.

  • hate the red. that is not going to age well. the rest of it looks good though.

  • I Dont Get It

    I’m not a red guy but love it here–its a welcome change!

  • Me like red.

  • I like the red better than the brown and beige which seemed to be the color scheme of choice for builders in petworth.

  • drove by this morning and thought it looked great. the red looks better in person.

  • Any word on retail here? I think they can fit 2 or maybe 3 smaller places. I imagine the rent will be too much for small business owners/entrepreneurs, but I’d love to see a Taylor Gourmet, Sweetgreen, Chipolte, Cava Grill, etc.

    • You know, that wood finish is basically already set up for Sweet Green or Taylor. I’m just sayin’

    • I went to one of the open houses for potential investors in Slim’s Diner. Someone in the audience asked whether the owners were worried about competition from the diner that was supposed to be opening in this building. The owners were not aware of any other diner opening in the area. I have not heard any more about it. One would think that would be a hard secret to keep.

      • Apparently there was a bar and bar/restaurant lined up for retail spaces, but then the building sold. Hence, the change from condos for sale to rentals. My guess is that they are TBD now. I just hope the owner works with the community to find retail that also fits the needs of the neighborhood. If they try to force an unwanted business in, the neighborhood will fight against it and the ANC will require a major (and costly) community agreement.
        Enough corner stores, national chains and bodegas. Why not a local restaurant or fast casual chain like Chipotle, Sweet Greens, BGR/5 Guys or Chopt?

        • I can’t think of any business that the neighborhood has tried to block. The only things I can think of that people in this neighborhood have fought against are low income housing and the plan to relocate Central Union Mission to Georgia Ave .There’s lots of moaning and groaning about national chains, and everybody and their step-cousin has an idea about what businesses would be perfect. But I’m not aware of any business that’s been unable to open in Park View or Petworth because of neighborhood pressure.

  • flat wall, flat windows, only expansion joints and dryer vents, going to be a drippy, mildewy mess without regular powerwashing. why is the white corner treatment only on one side, or is it unpainted and will be dark like the rest?

  • Excellent! Saw it while at the Petworth Market last Saturday and it was engaging the street nicely. Much fresher design language for Georgia Av. than the bland conservative design of the Safeway a block up. More please!

  • What’s up with these modern side panels? They are slapping them on practically every recent rental building – City Market on O, the new places at 9th and U, this building, etc. Are they energy efficient and easier to insulate?
    I do like that they add some unique color to these buildings. However, I worry that in ten years they will look very dated and obviously a trend from the mid 20-teens.

  • Looks like they installed the moisture barrier but haven’t applied the siding yet.

  • At least it doesn’t have rectangular bays of windows busting out of the wall. I’ve really come to hate that trend.

  • The red is ugly–might work somewhere else but not here.The place with the wood accents looks like bad Bauhaus crossed with the 1970s. They’ll both only look worse with time. Wood probably is not a good exterior decorative material.

Comments are closed.