Comments on: Judging Buildings

By: frith

frith — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:16:30 +0000

You may find the history of the introduction of these residences into the neighborhood interesting…
At the time they were proposed, there was outrage from the community preservationists . However, the developers, with the sanction of the DC Gov’t., prevailed.

While DC has always been a “walkable” city, periods of high crime (remember when we were the murder capital?) effect peoples willingness to hoof it after dark. Back when these places were built, convenience and security were a major factor in their marketability.

By: Larchie

Larchie — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:21:20 +0000

The garages might be tandem 2 car garages, but probably are single car garages. You might count the driveway as a tandem spot as well (hard to tell in the photo), so the current building provides at least 4, probably 8 private spaces.

It’s not clear from the photo if there even would be street parking there anyway, given the 2 ramps on either side of the building – sight distance would probably dictate that there would be no street parking in front of the building.

I’m not sure if the city lets you count a driveway tandem space as part of the required parking. I know from work experience that Fairfax County doesn’t let you count them since most people use their garage for storage and park in the driveway. This is also the case in the alley in Petworth behind my own home – many people use their garages for storage and park in the street. Someday I should count and come up with an actual percentage for my neighborhood. Anyone else seen this phenomenon?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:06:43 +0000

I’m confused. Are these garages capable of accomodating two cars each? There are only 4 bays, and the curb cuts eliminate at least 3 parking spots on the street. What did we accomplish beyond moving three public parking spots on to private land, where they only benefit the owner? I know someone is going to say that the owners “have a right” to the use of their land. That’s sort of bullshit, since the access they built to get to “their land” resulted in a decrease in utility for the public land adjoining them. And for no net benefit.

I don’t believe that neighbors should have any right to dictate aesthetics to each other, but public parking spots are a collective concern.

By: Ward 1 Guy

Ward 1 Guy — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:27:52 +0000

I prefer front doors, stoops, and gardens instead of curb cuts and garage doors. These are the type of community-killing buildings I purposely moved into the city to avoid.

By: anonemoo

anonemoo — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:01:36 +0000

required by law are parking spaces for residential units.

and yeah if you take the number of pedestrian trips across the curb cut and divide it by the number of times the cars actually cross the sidewalk, you’ll see the ratio is incredible in favor of very safe pedestrian and bike travel.

furthermore, these houses were built when even calling this area dupont east didnt have a cache. this was a total risk at the time.

finally, who wants to live on the street level of a busy street, when we need people to live downtown?

so yeah they’re ugly, but the posters here rarely have much sense of reality, laws, history or common sense.

same people who complain about developments not having enough parking because it will clog the street parking when their own houses don’t have parking.

funny!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:56:43 +0000

I LOVE them

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:21:41 +0000

hey anonymous like three above me: for the record, admo was not organic. an investor came in several years ago, bought a bunch of properties, and then turned them into bars and restaurants. the rest came after that. this same investor is now responsible for the “atlas district” along h st ne. Not organic, but the investor is most certianly an asset to the city.

By: guardian of all that is good

guardian of all that is good — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:28:26 +0000

UGLY AS SIN–tear them down now

By: ET

ET — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:16 +0000

Obviously the architects weren’t thinking about curb appeal ’cause that doesn’t have a speck of it.

A realtor would have the statistic, but don’t some people drive by a house and and decide based on the outside if it is something they want to look at? Hopefully the location and the inside make up for the lack of attractiveness on the outside.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:41:41 +0000

“don’t like ‘certain people’ having so much power to tell others what they can and cannot do. But maybe I just like areas that grow organically (see U Street, Mt. P, even Adam Mo)”

You must be joking about Mt.P….