Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The streetcar on Michigan Ave will not be here till after 2030/2040. It is the last part of the streetcar network.
So that means that even if you build at McMillan, those thousands of people would have no way to get around other than a bus. But didn't you say that people don't want to live in new developments that don't have rail service? Are the new residents supposed to sit around for 15 to 25 years until a streetcar is up and running?
1. There really only seems to be one firm that builds anything in DC: Clark Construction.
2. And that's a problem, right? It's not so bad when bland, cookie cutter architecture goes on top of a bus parking lot as was the case with City Center. But if you're going to bulldoze an Olmsted park, you need to come with something better than NoMa 2.0. That's just utterly disrepectful and a waste of taxpayer money at that.
Actually, JBG does more than Clark. As for bland, it's pretty hard for developers to get creative when you have to purchase land for outrageous prices, then you have to be able to fit enough square footage in 14 stories of height to make any kind of profit for any kind of ROI. How come these people in these neighborhoods never get all riled up about our height restrictions in this city that have falsely inflated the cost of living in D.C.? Are people really that clueless?
So that means that even if you build at McMillan, those thousands of people would have no way to get around other than a bus. But didn't you say that people don't want to live in new developments that don't have rail service? Are the new residents supposed to sit around for 15 to 25 years until a streetcar is up and running?
You seem to be confused about your own post. I never said the McMillian plan would have to wait to be built until the streetcar came through. I said it was only being allowed to be built because a streetcar was planned.
You are the one who said the V.A. didn't want to sell their parking lots till a better transportation option was available. So, as I said before, that parking lot will not be developed for another 20 years if ever.
So that means that even if you build at McMillan, those thousands of people would have no way to get around other than a bus. But didn't you say that people don't want to live in new developments that don't have rail service? Are the new residents supposed to sit around for 15 to 25 years until a streetcar is up and running?
I would wager most people moving into the McMillian site will have cars like most people in the surrounding low density community do. It's low density development and that usually has high car usuage. Let's not act like they are building highrise apartment buildings here. Most of it will be health care offices and town houses. My building in NOMA has 469 units and the phase two of my building about to break ground has 430. That's about 900 units on a tiny footprint which is almost as many units as McMillian will have.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 04-09-2013 at 03:22 PM..
You seem to be confused about your own post. I never said the McMillian plan would have to wait to be built until the streetcar came through. I said it was only being allowed to be built because a streetcar was planned.
I didn't say you said that. I asked if the new residents would have to sit around and wait for 15 to 25 years until a streetcar arrived. Since you claimed these new developments don't work without rail, I'm just wondering how McMillan will succeed.
I didn't say you said that. I asked if the new residents would have to sit around and wait for 15 to 25 years until a streetcar arrived. Since you claimed these new developments don't work without rail, I'm just wondering how McMillan will succeed.
McMillian is in the core. I said development outside the core does not work without rail. You can't charge high rents because people will not pay it. This development is in the core so you are out of context.
Public green space huh? Well, if it is not developed by these developers, it will remain a fenced off waste land. The city is not going to use tax payer dollars to redevelop this into a park and upkeep it. So what are our option's.
(1) Allow it to be developed while preserving half of the site as a living museum and actually using the underground area as water storage storm flooding relief.
or
(2) Allow it to remain as is and watch the weeds grow higher and higher and trash collect on the barb wire fencing around it.
I guess we may want to sleep on it....
One thing I find interesting is how people complain when they are getting robbed or only have some random carry out to go have dinner in for years, but then when they start to get the things necessary to have nice restaurants and grocery stories sustain and thrive like population density and new investment, it's not what they thought it would be.
Who said anything about allowing it to remain as it is and fenced off? I'd agree that it's better open for use, but I don't see why everyone should agree with a certain developers version of what it is. Do you know why it's fenced off? It was fenced off, despite its prior use as a neighborhood gathering spot and oft-used greenspace for the public, for World War II because of the perceived dangers of someone or some group mucking with the capital's water supply which would have been disastrous. Amenities and features were removed from it and it's understandable why it was done. Now that it's not an integral part of DC's water supply, what great danger does it pose to become the green space it was originally envisioned to be and that it once acted as? I don't think Bajan, if he'll back me up on this, is saying it should be left to seed and fenced off as it is. What's being asked is that there be better alternative responses to the parcel and one that hopefully retains its historical value and maybe retain more of how it was originally intended to function. What is so terrible about this in comparison to putting up more of the terrible cookie cutter development that seems to be the modus operandi for development in DC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
That will never be developed. That is the V.A. hospital and Washington Hospital Center. Any other ideas?
You mean like stacked parking garages on higher floors with commercial and/or retail on ground floor and maybe other floors in a city with expensive land as opposed to laying over the historical richness of an adjacent plot of land that was originally envisioned and use as an essential part of the greenspace allocation for an urban city? And?
McMillian is in the core. I said development outside the core does not work without rail. You can't charge high rents because people will not pay it. This development is in the core so you are out of context.
So those parking lots that are in the core can actually be developed and well utilized without rail. Great!
So those parking lots that are in the core can actually be developed and well utilized without rail. Great!
Yes they can be developed. But as Bajan said, the owners "V.A. Hospital and Washington Hospital" DO NOT want to sell it to developers until rail is a viable option. Take that up with them if you have a problem with that. Bajan seems to have the inside on that so I can't help you there.
Yes they can be developed. But as Bajan said, the owners "V.A. Hospital and Washington Hospital" DO NOT want to sell it to developers until rail is a viable option. Take that up with them if you have a problem with that. Bajan seems to have the inside on that so I can't help you there.
Um, that's not what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's not true. The Hospital has been talking about selling those lots since you were in Kindergarten. The main issue the Hospital is facing is that there's no transit there. But if the streetcar does all you claim it does, then that shouldn't be a problem.
Read carefully. Where in that statement does it read: "The Washington Hospital Center does not want to sell until rail is a viable option?" Where do you see that? Or where does it read: "The administrators of the Washington Hospital Center believe that the lack of transit may be a problem?" Those ideas are nowhere to be found in that statement.
That statement is clearly me stating what I believe to be an issue for the Hospital Center. That doesn't mean that the Hospital won't sell it because there's no rail there. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the Hospital Center believes the absence of rail is even a problem.
You're kind of like Jamie Foxx in Law Abiding Citizen where he tries to get a confession out of Gerard Butler. Foxx asks, "Did you murder Clarence Darby?" and Butler responds, "Clarence Darby deserved to die." Clearly not a confession. You need to learn to pay more careful attention to detail, Counselor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
