ReNewShaw Twitter

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Parcel 42: What Might Have Been

The following is a rendering of the Parcel 42 development proposal selected by the Office of the Deputy Mayor earlier this week. Hopefully this rendering is only a working draft of what the building will ultimately look like, as I think the muted, cold colors and boxy design make the building look very dated and institutional.


OneDC mounted a campaign lobbying for the approval of the above design and proposal. Apparently OneDC has a financial or proprietary interest in the above proposal, which is discussed here.

In contrast, the following is a rendering of we could have had if this proposal by Banneker Ventures, LLC and Community Preservation and Development Corporation (DPDC) had been chosen by the Deputy Mayor's office:

I find Banneker's design very appealing aesthetically. The shape of the building, its visual texture, how it relates to the street, the roof lines, the numerous large windows, and the contrasting design for the building across the alley (you can't really see it in this rendering, but the smaller building separated by an alley from the main building looks neat and transitions well into the neighboring buildings) all make this a beautiful proposal.


The above renderings were copied from the ANC2C forum.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is anyone aware of an appeal process or other mechanism where the community can can request a review of the procedures and factors which were employed in the consideration. This may be a disaster.

Anonymous said...

I'd be very interested in who was on the 3 member commission that selected Parcel 42 Partners...and if there's any possibility of appealing this decision...this selection is NOT in the best interest of the community...

Anonymous said...

i am so freaking pissed at fenty and onedc.... This is a joke decision... How much more crime do we have to put up with?!?

Omar said...

Anyone know the count on how many 100% low income buildings are being built in the Waterfront areas? I'm pretty sure its zero.

Some people in the city have to have a hidden agenda to keep Shaw a ghetto. A 110 ft Giant is to big, but this f&*cking cage of a building is fine?

Anonymous said...

was the other proposal all low income as well? How long does it take to get the fact that such high density projects are a nightmare?!?!

Shaw Rez said...

Apparently there is some sort of restriction relating to the development of Parcel 42 requiring it to be all below-market housing. Here's what Commissioner Chapple stated in his post endorsing the design I like:

"Parcel 42 will be developed as affordable housing for renters, offering apartments for renters having incomes up to 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) of the Washington DC metropolitan area, which is approximately $94,000.00 for a family of four. This should not to be confused with subsidised housing that currently exists at Lincoln-Westmoreland, 1330 - 7th Street, and Gibson Plaza, which provides apartments for renters having incomes ranging from 0-30% of AMI."

Anonymous said...

Per the Post today, Jack Evans has apparently thrown a wrench into the Radio One deal...

anderlank said...

It looks like Banneker's design includes cylindrical wind turbines on the roof, which makes me think that they were going for LEED certification. If that is the case, I really hope OneDC's plan is similarly green. If the Federal government can accept the responsibility of building green so should DC government.

Anonymous said...

damn, this is bad news. I'm getting sick of how it seems like The City thinks DC residents are willing to sacrafice anything and everything to support affordable housing projects. They may think that because that's all they hear, but that could be because those that oppose particualr Affordable housing projects on valid ground like historic preservation, economic developmet, cost, etc. are viciously labeled poor hating racists.

I think Politicans might want to consider this next time they try to measure community sentiment. There is a quiet majority out there that also wants economic development to continue, the city to preserve it's historic charecter, public safety and stable tax base. When affordable housing projects conflict with this - they shouldn't take precident.

Anonymous said...

It's destructive for anyone to suggest that building affordable housing compromises public safety or that building affordable housing compromises the potential for architectural quality.

The Parcel 42 partners' design may not look as appealing as the Banneker Venture but appearance is mutually exclusive to affordability. The less expensive design by the Parcel 42 partners speaks more to their desire to maximize individual profit at the expense of architectural quality given that the DC government is subsidizing the affordable housing.