December 21, 2006
Morning Roundup: Bye Bye Sunshine Edition
Fenty Picks Up a Six Pack: Of cabinet members, of course. The Post reports that the Mayor-elect announced yesterday he will bring in Tangherlini-protege Brender L. Gregory as director of the Office of Personnel, and Janice Quintana as the director of the city's Unified Communications Center. Additionally, four other department heads from the Williams' administration will keep their jobs: William O. Howland from the Dept. of Public Works, Vincent N. Schiraldi from the Dept. of Youth Rehabilitation Services, Deborah A. Gist, the state education officer, and, perhaps somewhat controversially, Devon Brown from the Dept. of Corrections. You'll recall that Brown was in charge in June when two prisoners escaped from the D.C. Jail, though he was praised for taking swift action in firing 11 employees after the incident. And really, having only two prisoners escape this year is (if our math is right) a 72 percent improvement over the seven that escaped in 2005 (Brown took over in January).
Big Changes for New York Ave. Metro? Developer Sang Oh Choi has proposed a more than $1 billion project that would turn the Capital City Market site into condos, restaurants and a hotel, and now the D.C. Council has officially endorsed the plan. Of course a majority of property owners would first need to sign off on the plan before it became a reality, but we certainly hope they also consult residents in the area as well -- if they're anything like our commenters, they've got some pretty strong feelings about the proposal.
Briefly Noted: After ten years, Route 234 actually 'finished' ... Good Samaritans save man who collapsed near Jefferson Memorial ... Girl hit by truck leaving school holiday program.
This Day In DCist: One year ago we were getting excited about the Fringe Festival and getting excited about the city government's sudden enthusiasm for baseball. Two year ago we welcomed Wegmans and pondered why no one smiles on the Metro.
Photo by Eye Captain.
|
Of course a majority of property owners would first need to sign off on the plan before it became a reality...
Since when is 50% a majority? Criswell predicts some of the more reluctant tenants require stronger pursuasion, and by pursuasion I mean a late night visit from the Simple City Crew. I mean, things break, don't they?
And of course the Council is going to sign off on this. More tax revenue for them to blow. You show up at City Hall with a billion dollars, you think they'll tell you take your filthy lucre someplace else? Five bucks says you can get the entire Council to pose for Polaroids in pink tutus with green bananas hanging out of their...
Is there ANYBODY besides Choi and the Council who wants this development?
Of course a majority of property owners would first need to sign off on the plan before it became a reality...
Since when is 50% a majority? Criswell predicts some of the more reluctant tenants require stronger pursuasion, and by pursuasion I mean a late night visit from the Simple City Crew. I mean, things break, don't they?
And of course the Council is going to sign off on this. More tax revenue for them to blow. You show up at City Hall with a billion dollars, you think they'll tell you take your filthy lucre someplace else? Five bucks says you can get the entire Council to pose for Polaroids in pink tutus with green bananas hanging out of their...
Is there ANYBODY besides Choi and the Council who wants this development?
"Since when is 50% a majority?"
Uh, since always?
"Is there ANYBODY besides Choi and the Council who wants this development?"
I do, and every other resident who wants the NY Ave/N. Cap area cleaned up. Also, probably every decent business in the area(XM,GSA). Way to make an informed statement.
Isn't 50% half and 50% plus 1 (of whatever you are measuring) a majority?
Given its location, the Capital City Market area is sorely underutilized. Approving this development would be a huge boost for the city. Plus, the city needs more attractive housing close to downtown. It's a bit shortsighted to say that all new development must be in Northwest.
what is up with those obnoxious full page ads you can't skip?
HRAO:
No one is saying all development must occur in Northwest. In fact, there are plenty of underutilized locations in NE and SE. What bugs people is that the Capital City Market development was pushed through with little to no oversight. Lord knows DC doesn't need another redevelopment effort like the 1960's SW waterfront effort.
I live 2 blocks south of union market.
I don't think that the space is "sorely underutilized".
Just because there isn't a Pottery Barn and a Starbucks in the vacinity does not mean that the space should be razed to make room for said estabishments.
Maybe we should raze Eastern Market to build a bowling alley and and maybe something totally radical that this area sorely needs like maybe some condos?
The biggest trouble with the Choi development is not the actual end result, which is ok but not great, but that it is taking a truly unique area and making it very generic. That and the lack of public consultation about the project.
A city should strive to keep and improve its unique areas otherwise we will end up with little Clarendons everywhere.
"Given its location, the Capital City Market area is sorely underutilized."
No it's not. It's just not being utlized for condos. Expanding this city's tax base is important, but it is not the only responsibility of the government. We are eliminating light industrial areas all over this city. This severely limits the variety of businesses we have here and the ability of local business to start-up. In addition, destroying the only wholesaling food market in the District has ripple effects throughout the city's small markets and restaurants (as well as sending more of their money to the suburbs).
These warehouses are not laying fallow (like many other places throughout the city). They are fully functional. Are they beautiful? No. But light industrial areas are not supposed to be.
A hybrid of condos/market sounds appealing, but it's unlikely to workout well. For one, the bill provides no protections for the businesses (e.g. fix rent, gauranteed space allocation) and as soon as you move people into condos, they're just going to turn around and start complaining about the noise (a la the lofts in Adams Morgan).
This is a bad idea and, worse, it's an example of bad government bought on the cheap.
This is a terrible idea. It's one thing for a neighborhood to change organically. I don't generally oppose that sort of thing. It's another thing to take something that's unique in the city and rip it down by fiat to put up generic, substandard "luxury" housing and crappy chain stores. Boo to the council. I hope it all falls apart and that we don't get Little Clarendon. Rise up and resist, my socially mobile, target-demo bretheren.
"we certainly hope they also consult residents in the area as well"
Then maybe they can team up with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to save the Tooth Fairy from the Bogeyman.
"A city should strive to keep and improve its unique areas otherwise we will end up with little Clarendons everywhere."
Of course, there's not much incentive - while they were approving the projects that now make up Clarendon, Arlington kept getting awards lauding them for their smart decisions regarding development - in spite of multiple neighborhood residents complaining that the area was going to be overwhelmed by huge buildings and chain stores.
Plus, the city needs more attractive housing close to downtown
are you saying that the mass ave explosion is not enough housing that is close to downtown?
or simply that it is not attractive?
because i would tend to agree with the later statement, it's not pretty. and people like pretty things.
ooooooooooh, perhaps it is just too expensive, i seeeeeee...
actually, what i really want to see is how/if they propose creating a nice little passage from the new york ave side of the station under the tracks to that area. that would really be interesting. are there any schemematics for this, or is it all just words?
Everything about this proposal smacks of "just words." My guess is that they'll rip everything down, realize there's no point in building in new housing right now, and let the land lie vacant for ten years.
Some days it's too easy to get down on this city.
Reid,
Why should a redevelopment bill provide provisions for exisiting business such as fixed rent or space allocations? What's wrong with allowing market forces to push out underperforming businesses? If the current businesses are truly successful, then they should be capable of continued success. If you can think of a good reason as to why governments should subsidize underperforming entities, please let me know. I'm all ears.
This is a terrible idea. It's one thing for a neighborhood to change organically.
How exactly do you define "organically"? With the current market conditions, it's not usually feasible for a developer to buy up a small plot of land and develop it. Therefore, all you're going to get are the big massive new condos... it's why Clarendon is Clarendon, it wasn't a campaign to make development "inorganic".
that is crap. i want to see renderings, plans, skechup models, stick figures on a napkin before i back this up. and i am a poor speller or schematics.
can the dcist splurge on spellcheck on comments?
Anyone who says that it is "sorely underutilized" hasn't tried parking there on a Saturday. And apparantly now if someone comes along and offers more money for the space you're "underperforming". Hell, New York Avenue is lined with half-vacant eyesores from 50 to North Capitol and then some; name one place in that stretch that isn't underperforming.
the bee:
Firefox 2.0 has automatic spell-checking.
Good question about organically. I suppose what I meant was that the city vaguely threatening eminent domain takes out the market forces aspect. If there is such a huge hue and cry for the development that the developer can afford to buy everyone out without the city looming in the background, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. If there were a stronger argument for forced redevelopment of that area, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it stands, the city is aiding a private land deal where it looks like the developer couldn't get the deal done on his own and where there is no public reason to put up condos. It all stinks to high hell.
There are plenty of condo developments in the city that have reacted to their surroundings, rather than razing them at the outset.
"Bye Bye Sunshine" is an odd post title when our days will be getting longer from now till spring.
And yes, I know it was a reference to the weather and not our current orbital position. But still.
So if 50% vote for the plan and 50% vote against it, which "majority" rules? Gotta get up to speed on this new math thang.
And according to the Post article, it's majority landowners, not vendors. Not all the vendors own their shops. The largest landowner is Galludet, and they've said they won't sell. With Vincent Orange and John Ray's involvement, this whole mess stinks of the sort of cronyism you don't usually see outside Chicago.
And last time I checked Washington Business Journal, downtown had a 2-year condo supply, not counting those that are currently being built. There are condos in Shaw that are at less than 20% occupancy because the rest were bought in order to be flipped. I guess they're counting on ALL those condos being sold before these go up.
Sweet - If this is anything like the Old Children's Hospital site development that used to be at 13th and V, it will be a vacant lot for decades.
"Why should a redevelopment bill provide provisions for exisiting business such as fixed rent or space allocations? What's wrong with allowing market forces to push out underperforming businesses? If the current businesses are truly successful, then they should be capable of continued success. If you can think of a good reason as to why governments should subsidize underperforming entities, please let me know. I'm all ears."
They're not "underperforming". They are performing quite well at what they do. What you're trying to say is that that land is not being used to the highest profitability. Whether or not I agree with that is beside the point. The main point is that the higher profitable use of land should not be the only use of land.
And this isn't some Marxist wack job theory. It's the whole premise behind zoning. The government has an interest in designating certain areas for certain uses, some of which are not the most profitable uses.
As for whether it's right for the DC government to "subsidize" these business owners, the point I was trying to make is that one of the main selling points of the bill is that it (ostensibly) attempts to preserve the functions of the market. I was pointing out that that is meaningless without concrete provisions that would guarantee that the business owners had a chance to survive. It's a hollow promise to say you'll make room for the business owners if as a result of the construction their rents triple and the available square footage is decimated.
Monkeyrotica: 50% + 1 is a majority. You're nitpicking the WJLA article.
HRAO: "Why should a redevelopment bill provide provisions for exisiting business such as fixed rent or space allocations? What's wrong with allowing market forces to push out underperforming businesses? If the current businesses are truly successful, then they should be capable of continued success."
How does "redevelopment bill" jibe with "market forces"?
They essentially razed the capitol childrens museum in that hood to build, yep condos, and man is it a monstrosity, er i mean lovely luxury lofts!
Quick, buy now theres only 16,000 units left!
Also not mentioned here is the fact that the tool of eminent domain would be used. Therefore the issue of "public good" is distinctly at the center of this debate, regardless of the free market point of view.
There's a really good reason why Kelo was a terrible decision and why the rest of the country freaked out over it: back door sleaze like this should never be given the power of eminent domain.
Politburo - You got me. I'm just a little sore with WJLA since Alison Starling put that restraining order out on me.
Psssst. Alison. WHY HAVEN'T YOU CALLED?
Show of hands: if they built a Wegmans on half of the property, and let those vendors who wanted to stay remain, how many dcists would patronize a "Wegmans Corners?" It's win-win-win: developers get to develop, vendors who want out get cash, and those who want to stay and sell the real deal can. The yuppies get their cruelty-free tofu, the local economy gets a boost, you have 24/7 foot traffic, and nobody who doesn't want to leave gets displaced. If the Council can push TIF financing for Magic Johnson Theaters and bowling allys that never materialize, how about one that benefits everybody?
If Logan Circle can send a video loveletter to Whole Foods, why can't the H Street and Trinidad crowd do the same?
Good point, Reid.
Kelo is a disaster and is going to lead to the forced corporate homogenization of our urban areas. As if that trend needed any help.
my dread: it'll be like Orange's OTHER great redevelopment: the RI Giant, Home Depot, AJ Wright. Which has now taken a Citibank branch from Brookland... way to help the area. Under-utilized Metro access, insane parking lot design, and more shoe stores & Radio shacks. Since his name is on this, I think the council should walk away from this and come back to it in 5 years. New council (no Orange), new Mayor & new cond0o market. Letting it go (since it IS a vibrant market; check it out if you haven't been) hurts no one right now.
Just waiting for the Whole Foods in Columbia Heights!
Yeah. Have to say Orange doesn't really get urban design.
What effect might the loss of this commercial/wholesale market have on other businesses in other commercial zones?
Show of hands: if they built a Wegmans on half of the property, and let those vendors who wanted to stay remain, how many dcists would patronize a "Wegmans Corners?"
I'd love it.
True, there are businesses there. But the considerable majority are wholesale businesses, and they don't actually serve the local community directly.
Yes, there are several exceptions, including apparently a great Italian shop.
Some sort of redevelopment wouldn't automatically be a bad thing.
Yes, if it was just one big massive ugly condo thing that would suck. But if it was done smartly, with a real working farmers market and other shops that sell retail, plus a housing component and other things that the neighborhood might actually use, it'd be pretty nice.
But I do agree that it does look like the process so far is suspect.
When land was cleared around the baseball stadium, DPW staff told me that some of their supply depots were eliminated. I'm concerned about that, somewhat, and wondering what the effect on businesses around the city might be if their "supply depot" is eliminated. The notion that every place must be at the best and highest use isn't necessarily good for the whole. Just sayin'...
Slightly off topic, but can you believe that there's a Ruby Tuesdays in Columbia Heights? It's like spotting an elephant in the Artic.