Inclusionary Zoning
Well yesterday's comments about Inclusionary Zoning has me looking at DC.GOV's Office of Planning site looking at a rather lengthy PDF file. So far it looks like a mixed income/ mixed use project. And thus far in my reading I have yet to see what the heck the AMI is for 2005 or 2004. In 2004 the AMI (average median income) was about $58K for a single person. So 80% AMI, which is the highest a person can make and still qualify as affordable is $47K. So an entry level GS-9 (for you Feds) or a newbie non-profit professional underling should qualify.Looking at the Office of Planning's map, Truxton Circle is identified as a proposed inclusionary zoning area. Right now in my head I'm trying to think of what could be developed. The only area that pops up in my head is North Capitol. Everything else, I think of as low rise residential housing with very few empty buildable lots. I could be wrong and you're welcomed to point out parts that are good candidates for major development. And what I see proposed by the city seems to be directed at something larger than something that may fit on a skinny little lot on Bates or New Jersey. Of course one could take a look at the co-op between R and Q, but it isn't as bad as Sursum Corda.
The thing with Truxton, and what I like about it, which may make it difficult for mixed use development, is that it is quite residential. If there are businesses it is on North Cap, with a few on New Jersey and Florida. The businesses in the triangle of Truxton are small, house sized mom & pops. There is just not the space for the mixing of the use. Well, at least I don't see it.
posted by Mari @ 18.5.05
4 Comments:
no inclusionary zoning west of mass, huh?
thats surprising.
Look at the peach colored circles on the map, those are the proposed inclusionary zones. There are zones that seem to follow Conneticut Avenue up to the Western Av border. So this plan seems to go west of the park into Friendship Heights and Van Ness.
I think this will be a healthy thread/debate, since it looks like quite a grand project. The vibe I get is that the city likes part of the CMIZ's proposals, but doesn't want to be quite as aggressive on others. I certainly think one area should serve as a pilot for a few years, so everyone can see what it really means, bottom line. If it works, it could proceed slowly. I just hate the thought of some radical experiment on a city-wide scale, sans wealthy neighborhoods.
Yes, it may just come down to political will and not any cold numbers, leading the changes. I looked at the map in the Post and saw where there was 20% of the population in poverty. In parts of G'town, Foggy Bottom, and around Thomas Circle, 20% lives in poverty. They can't all be interns and students can they?
Then the other issue is what can you do with what you have. I can't see Truxton bringing and developing the density that commerical forces want. However the areas in and around Sursum Corda, below NY Ave are large enough to be developed into high density projects that would produce enough market rate properties to cover the below market properties and attract the desired businesses.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home