As you can see, a lot of glass is now in place on the lower half of the tower. Much facade work has been done on the lower levels, as well.
The vision for the ground floor of the building is a greater emphasis on dining and retail that will draw foot traffic to the development, as opposed to the retail in the original Gallery, which is more oriented toward services for residents upstairs. Such tenants will be needed to activate the already-completed plaza public space the two towers will share.
 |
| The shared plaza, with lighted sculptures already in place |
 |
| Click here to begin the retirement of our amateur-hour Planning Board |
18 comments:
Seems like every morning I get up and Robert Dyer is reporting on a new development. Looking forward to it!
They need to move that gym from the ground floor retail spot
Roald are you paid to say that in every other comment?
Actually, I agree with Roald! For someone who frequently complains about the county’s “moribund” economy, Mr. Dyer seems to report on quite a bit of development news.
Daylight photos? Must be a paid assignments - thanks Developers who control the county council! Ironically, this property is pretty close to the pending foreclosure on the Condo mentioned previously.
Roald, it seems that every morning you get up just as everyone else is about to break for lunch after a morning of work.
Nope, i'm not Dyer. Keep dreaming.
Roald @ 7:43: Agreed! For a supposedly moribund County there sure does seem to be a lot of investment and development!
1) Reported nearly a day earlier on BB
2) Photos are at least two days old based on weather conditions
3) #Photorrhea - 18 photos of the same building, all shown on homepage
4) Campaign ad in the middle of a sponsored article raises ethical and legal questions
7:22: "BB" posted some stock renderings from Donohoe in a years-late report announcing the project exists. I've been reporting on this building before the construction even began. These are actual, original photos of the construction. There were no original photos in "BB"'s report, much less current construction photos.
As usual, you end up looking like a total dumbass.
9:20/6:25: Economic development involves much more than residential development, something you and your bosses on the Council don't understand. If you did, then we wouldn't have a budget shortfall, as you would have known that residential generates more cost expenditures than it does in revenue.
10:59: You seem to have an omnipotent knowledge of real estate happenings in downtown Bethesda, but will not share it by simply emailing me an anonymous tip about what you know. Isn't it more productive to help me report the news?
"You seem to have an omnipotent knowledge of real estate happenings in downtown Bethesda"
The word you want is "omniscient", not "omnipotent".
9:11 — there’s your tip, right there in the comments section of your own blog.
"residential generates more cost expenditures than it does in revenue."
You've made this claim repeatedly, but I don't recall you ever listing a source.
10:29: My source is the County budget - $208,000,000 deficit, despite massive residential development across the County. Ongoing structural deficit as far out as the forecasts go. According to proponents of urbanization, we should be flush with revenue. We're not.
5:10: A vague reference is not a tip. What is being "foreclosed?" I've already talked about the rumors regarding the Steamers site condos. You can't "foreclose" on an existing condo building, only on individual condo units.
Dyer, I am 10:59 and in the know - lets just say that. Not willing to share but like dropping bread crumbs, like the drilling at La Madeleine way before the sale was announced. Do your homework and start investigating instead of reading the Parks and Planning website. BTW, when are you going to announce the Trader Joe's new lease in a tbd site in the Woodmont Triangle?
2:53: And it's not 7900 Wisconsin? Existing space or future development? They would need at least 10000 SF.
Saith Dyer @ 9:07 PM: "residential generates more cost expenditures than it does in revenue."
Saith Dyer @ 2:15 PM: "My source is the County budget - $208,000,000 deficit, despite massive residential development across the County. Ongoing structural deficit as far out as the forecasts go. According to proponents of urbanization, we should be flush with revenue. We're not."
You haven't even demonstrated correlation, let alone cause and effect. I could just as easily say that the County's deficit is caused by your continuing to live Mom's basement, and that claim would be equally valid.
Post a Comment