I talked to the contractor running the job today. He said it's going to be 2 units, a pop up, AND they're going to extend the back of the house 3/4 of the way to the property line in the back.
Friday, July 11, 2014
160 Adams St NW to become two units, a pop-up and get a rear extension
Here is an update on 160 Adams Street NW:
I talked to the contractor running the job today. He said it's going to be 2 units, a pop up, AND they're going to extend the back of the house 3/4 of the way to the property line in the back.
I talked to the contractor running the job today. He said it's going to be 2 units, a pop up, AND they're going to extend the back of the house 3/4 of the way to the property line in the back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The plague and greed continue... Let's push hard for Conservation Distrct status!
Next door neightbor here. Yes, it's going to be massive. Let's just hope that the owner cleans up the mattress and other garbage that people are dumping in the front yard after they left the house vacant to become a community dumping ground of nine months. Don't think for a second that we're going to let this monstrousity become the first thing people see when they turn the corner on our block, though. Worst thing we can all do is to push to preserve the ugliness that this developer intends to inflict on us. Expect a tasteful, well-designed pop up from us to hide some of this in the years to come, as long as the city does not go crazy with well-intentioned but poorly executed new regulations.
James, next door: So should we assume that you are not a supporter of pursuing neighborhood historic designation or the proposed conservation district for Bloomingdale? You assume that either designation would "preserve" the potential ugly architecture of the pop-up? I want to understand what your assumptions are here. Thanks for your reply.
Ugh please no more pop ups. "tasteful pop-up" is an oxymoron.
I have no problem with well done pop-ups, but I did notice a Taja Construction van on 2nd yesterday, so it looks like they are the developer. They had that issue with the collapsed building on NY Ave.
Really? Taja? They certainly don't have a good reputation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/taja-construction-dumping_n_1927095.html
A Google search shows that the owner of Taja lives nearby on 2nd Street.
Acc/ to the DC real property database this property is only 1,680 sq. ft. That's too small for two condos. R-4 zoning requires 900 sq. ft. per unit. Also, our R-4 residential zoning specifically permits only "a maximum lot occupancy of 60% for row dwellings." If this development is to cover 75% of the lot then it is wrong for two reasons--let alone any aesthetic concerns! Do they have posted permits allowing this? If I lived near this property I would be complaining to DCRA, and doing so ASAP!! ~~ Jim Myers -- 111 W
Post a Comment