Today’s Rental is an “open concept 1br/1ba apartment”

929florida_7

This rental is located at 929 Florida Avenue NW. The listing says:

“$2500/month available March 1, 2017 for open concept 1br/1ba apartment in the heart of Shaw/U Street. Also available furnished semi-furnished (beautiful West Elm + custom furniture not shown in photographs) for additional monthly cost.

929florida_2

Washer/dryer in unit
Incredible amount of natural light, no street noise (on backside of building)
High 10+ foot ceilings
Gas/water included in rent.

High-end finishes, custom headboard and shelving (not shown in photographs)
2 walk-in closets and additional coat closet
Monday-Friday doorman (named Randy, he’s fantastic!)
Nest thermostat
4-burner gas range
Bike storage in locked garage
Parking available from other owners in building (usually for $150-$200/month)
Roof deck with panoramic views of the entire city (only $50 to rent for private party/gathering)

To inquire, email [email protected] directly.”

38 Comment

  • As an owner in this building, currently only owners are allowed to own and rent parking spaces so this ad is actually violating the bylaws when stating a parking space would be available for rent.

    • Prince Of Petworth

      I believe the listing is from the owner.

      • I realize my point may have been unclear. Only owners are allowed to rent out their parking spot or rent other parking spots (not every owner has a parking spot). Renters are not able to rent or own parking spots under the current bylaws.

        • maxwell smart

          “Parking available from other owners in building (usually for $150-$200/month)” – I read that as “This unit doesn’t come with parking, but it might be available to rent from others in the building.”

          • Right, but according to anonymous, only owners — not renters — are allowed to rent parking spaces from other owners.

          • I agree, that’s how I read it too. I’m just saying that renters are not allowed, under the current bylaws, to rent parking spaces.

          • This might be a stupid question but how would one know that a renter was parking in a spot vs. an owner? Do they really need that much documentation? Do they run plates or something?

          • Buildings usually keep track of license numbers and vehicle owners’ names and phone numbers so they can be contacted in case of a problem—if a car is damaged in an earthquake or is vandalized, etc., the owner probably wants to know right away. If they do this, they’ll know the car belongs to a renter.

        • So if someone rents a unit in the building, they can’t rent a parking spot from an owner that owns that parking spot? But an owner could rent that parking spot to someone who works nearby…thus resulting in more people regularly driving to and from your building AND more people parking on the street nearby.
          .
          Sure, that’s a totally logical way to make everyone happy.

          • Nope, not true. The current bylaws allow for only owners to lease and occupy assigned parking spaces. Parking is not available for random people working in the area.

          • I’m reading it as only owners can rent spaces from other owners. If you could rent to any person on the street, I can’t see a provision barring renters being necessary.
            I’m more curious how they keep track of who’s renting which spots…fobs maybe? But couldn’t an owner just rent it and give their tenant the fob?

          • If you don’t want owners to rent out their units, why not just put a cap on it/require onerous approvals from the Board? Playing around the edges with silly trifling like restricting parking space rentals and other nonsense to make it “less attractive” to rent out units is passive aggressiveness at its finest.

          • I was hearing this as “owners of parking spots may rent their spots; renters in the building may not rent parking spots from owners of other units.” Two clauses, the first allowing those who own parking spots to rent them, the second precluding renters in the building from renting one of those spots. So an owner could rent to anyone who will pay the asking price, EXCEPT a renter in the building. A renter would have to park on the street if they rented a unit that didn’t come with a deeded parking spot.
            .
            But it appears that interpretation is wrong, as is this particular anonymous’s. The person listing this place, if it really is Devon, below, believes that only people who actually live in the building, owner or renter, can own or rent parking spaces. That seems a more reasonable safety and security measure. I can see a building restricting access to the garage, through ownership or rental or parking spaces, to people who live in the building, as a security feature. I *can’t* see saying “only owner-occupants can park in the garage, whether they buy or rent the parking space.” That’s a passive aggressive way to say “renters not welcome here,” and you really should, instead, have bylaws restricting the number/percent of rentals, making qualification for renting a unit nearly impossible, etc.

        • I’m not sure where you got this information but no where in the bylaws does it state a renter cannot rent from another owner. I’d be happy to provide a copy of the section on Garage use to anyone interested in looking at it.

          -Devon Hopkins, OP

    • What’s the purpose behind that bylaw restriction? I’m genuinely curious. It doesn’t seem to make sense as a security measure because I’d assume if you can trust someone to rent a condo in the building you should be able to trust them with a parking spot? I could see not allowing people who do not own or live in the building to rent the parking spots.

  • did they run out of paint by the time they got to the ceiling?

  • I always thought the building was fugly. Good to see that the units inside are nice. Exterior is … blergh. Like something you would see in downtown Athens or some other foreign city with ugly, undistinguished architecture.

    • i think at some point it was called East Berlin. It does have that depressing, soul crashing Soviet vibe to it

      • There are several “unusual” looking buildings all clustered together around there. I looked at one of the earlier ones to go up and although the unit was OK, I couldn’t get past the general ugliness and the ridiculous asking price..

      • maxwell smart

        Let’s be clear, it’s more SimCity then Soviet Block. For starters, it has color.

        • you have a point. in fact, it has two colors…

        • And none of the colors is chipping off, nor is their a mural on the side to the glories of worker/peasant/farmer/teacher…

          And, my Soviet apartments were never this nice – not even in 1952/72/76 when constructed.

    • Oh, I’ve always kind of liked how the building looks. If you live there and your friends are coming over for the first time you can be like “Yeah it’s that geometric green and yellow one.” It stands out.

    • It is fugly. One of the more hideous buildings in the city. I go past it pretty frequently. I like modern-industrial architecture and design, but this was always a soulless monstrosity. Dated, dingy, and now rusted on the outside. That yellow-green color scheme too. Yuk.

      • maxwell smart

        Personally, I’d rather have this then the typical bland DC beige-yellow brick and/or faux-historical post-modern that is most DC apartment buildings going up. I also like the colors.

  • I’ve always wanted to stare at myself while I sit on the couch.

  • I haven’t been a renter in a long time, but is this what small 1br/1ba places are going for now?

    • Red fin has it around 700 sq ft;’is that considered small for a 1 bd? I don’t think so, right? Place looks nice and is close to metro, nightlife, and restaurants. Doesn’t seem outrageous to me.

    • maxwell smart

      In this area of town? Yes.

      • Oddly enough, you can get pretty nice 2 bedroom rowhouse apartments for $2900-3000. Obviously those come sans amenities, but this building isn’t offering much other than a roof (and you can get a patio or something along those lines with a rowhouse apt). But yes, the prices are absurd.

    • Mehhhhh. For the lack of amenities, I would say it’s a bit overpriced. For example, there’s a condo for rent in the brand new Atlantic Plumbing development for $2350 – and that building has a gym and pool.
      .
      Someone will rent it though.

  • You buy a unit in the building precisely because of how ugly it is. If you bought across the street you’d have to look at it.

  • Has anyone heard anything about the project next door that includes the Whole Foods? I haven’t seen an update about that in a long time…

Comments are closed.