Tag Archives: real-estate

Update on Spotify’s Purchase of 440 New Jersey Avenue, SE

440 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Update on Spotify’s Purchase of 440 New Jersey Avenue, SE

by Larry Janezich

Posted November 19, 2025

Last week, ANC6B discussed the Historic Preservation Application by the $137 billion Spotify Corporation (headquartered in Stockholm but operating in the US through one of its subsidiaries, Spotify USA).  The company recently purchased the residence at 440 New Jersey Avenue, SE, along with the adjoining garage/carriage house at 435 1st St SE.  The company plans to renovate the property.

According to ANC6B Planning and Zoning Committee Chair Vince Marino, “…the renovations themselves are minor and clearly designed to respect the property’s history, so no one on the ANC objects to them as such.”

Some members of the Committee, however, are concerned about Spotify’s claim that it does not need an exemption from zoning regulations for the residential property, because they fear Spotify will use the property for commercial purposes at the expense of the residential fabric of the neighborhood – as has happened with other residential properties on the block. 

Marino says, “One may suspect that Spotify might succumb to the temptation to use the home as an employee hotel, or as a lobbying office.  Spotify denies that it will.  But that’s certainly what we seem to be seeing with many other Capitol Hill homes owned by corporations and advocacy groups. … We need to have a neighborhood-wide conversation about whether more areas should be upzoned for mixed use and/or higher density.

ANC6B went on to unanimously approve a proposal to designate ANC6B Commissioner Tyler Wolanin – in whose single member district 440 New Jersey is located – to attempt to reach a settlement agreement with Spotify. 

Marino says, “We hope that such a settlement agreement would confirm that Spotify will indeed use 440 New Jersey Avenue SE as a residence rather than as a hotel or office.  This would provide Spotify with the reassurance that we are not trying to evict them, and it would provide the neighbors with the reassurance that ANC6B is trying to contain the situation, one home at a time, while the BZA and the City Council work on a broader solution to the tight property market.”

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Update on Development of Res 13 Phase II

by Larry Janezich

Posted June 18, 2025

Hill East Development Disposition Map showing location of parcels to be developed.

Wednesday night, Daryl Thomas from the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Development (DMPED), gave an update on the development of Res 13 Phase II to ANC7D’s Committee on Economic Development and to Hill East residents. 

Despite rumors to the contrary, Thomas assured that Res 13 Phase II “definitely is not stalled – we have been very much into a lot of infrastructure work on the campus.  This work consists of engineering in addition to relocation of a major 72 inch sewer line.”  The pipeline lies 40 to 50 feet below ground and extends from Massachusetts Avenue to Independence Avenue.  He added, “… this sewer line is a precursor for all the remaining work that needs to be done.  We have started the roadway design review.  Once the sewer relocation work is done then the city can come in and we can start constructing the roadways that surround the development parcels …”  Thomas said he expected the pipeline relocation to take a year. 

In 2000 the city released RFPs for the Phase II redevelopment of Res 13.  Phase II was divided into two different bundles, Bundle One (Parcels A, B-1, B-2, F-2 and G-2 – see map above), and Bundle Two (Parcels C, E. and H).  Some  parcels in Bundle One have been approved by the Zoning Commission and building design is underway.  Bundle Two ran into infrastructure issues including the sewage pipeline and utility relocation, and that has forced them to redesign their first phase of building which has prevented them from going to Zoning for approval.

Developers hoped to break ground in 2024 but infrastructure and finance issues pushed that date ahead to 2025.  Last night’s presentation suggested there may be another delay – at least in Bundle Two – until 2026 or later.  Phase III (in yellow) is a planned third phase of the development which has not launched yet.

Thomas did not offer a projected timeline for completion of development on any of the parcels.  None of the developers participated in the briefing. 

Thomas also offered a status report on the status of Phase I, where two mixed use buildings have been completed.  He reported that Sala Thai Restaurant, Duffy’s Irish Pub, and Alphabet Daycare have leased retail space in the Park Kennedy, one of the two Phase I mixed use buildings.  One retail space remains.  He said that none of the retail spaces has yet been leased in Phase I’s second mixed use building – The Ethel. 

During the Q&A, Thomas was asked if development would be coordinated with construction of the proposed NFL Stadium on the RFK site and with construction of a new DC city jail.  He noted that neither of those projects has been approved yet and once they are, DMPED would be working “hand in hand” with the developers of those projects. 

Comments Off on Update on Development of Res 13 Phase II

Filed under Uncategorized

City Scales Back Rumsey Aquatic Center Plan

More than 100 residents turned out for Wednesday night’s community meeting on the Rumsey Renovation plans which was held in the North Hall of Eastern Market.

City Scales Back Rumsey Aquatic Center Plan

by Larry Janezich

Posted March 13, 2025

Thursday night, DPR and DGS presented design options for renovation of the Rumsey Aquatic Center which were substantially different from the more ambitious plans of CM Charles Allen, who secured additional funding for the project based on those plans. 

The boost in $15 million in funds for the Rumsey renovation was intended to support a new second story with community amenities like a senior center with a tech lounge, a business incubator space, and an indoor fitness center.  These were in addition to the DPR’s initial budget ($20 million) to expand and renovate the swimming pool which would occupy the first floor of the new building.

That’s not what the designers brought back to the community.

Instead, developers presented to the community three slightly different proposals, all of them without a build-out on the second floor, as well as a host of reasons why the original vision could not be realized. In addition to what they characterized as a limited overall budget of $35 million, the designers cited the cost of LEED/net zero certification as a significant constraint. 

Here’s Allen’s reaction: 

“Two years ago, I asked DPR and DGS leaders what it would cost to build a second floor to expand services and programs while modernizing Rumsey pool. They gave me an exact number, and I found that exact money – that’s the budget we have.  It’s clear from tonight’s meeting there’s not enough space on one floor to meet the needs of the community here, and I’m frustrated how quickly they’re trying to walk away from the fully funded second floor. I will work to get them back on track and believe we will find a solution to deliver the generational project everyone wants.”

ANC6B Commissioner Jerry Sroufe, in whose single member district the Rumsey Center falls, said “if you only have three options and no second story that’s a bitter pill to swallow.  I didn’t think they were very responsive to the concerns raised and I don’t think that the things they said they couldn’t do because of various restrictions are true.  I am sure they could do things differently if they wanted to – exceptions can be made and they didn’t make any.  I didn’t like any of the options in particular.  It seems they wanted one story.” 

Two polls taken during the meeting to which there were 66 respondents showed a clear preference for bigger and better pool space and fewer amenities.  Regarding the possible amenities squeezed into the first floor – a hot tub, a yoga studio, and a fitness studio – a 40% plurality chose “none of the above.” 

The three options can be viewed here:  https://dgs.dc.gov/page/rumsey-aquatic-center    

Go to “March 12 Community Presentation.”

Roy Philips, a neighbor and frequent user of Rumsey Pool who attended last night’s meeting, said that “the presenters didn’t provide options that capture what the community is looking for.  In building options they have lots of constraints ….  Due to the constraints they said all they can do is build a new structure that is roughly the size and footprint as the current building. They can make the pool about 12 feet wider to accommodate 2 more swimming lanes. There were no options to extend the building into the plaza or with a second floor…It seems like they are focused on all the impediments rather than a vision of what the community really wants.”

Here’s the sequence of events for the next steps:

TBD Community Meeting 3 – Design Update.

TBD Community Meeting Final Design.

(Permitting Phase)

TBD Community Meeting Construction Kick off.

TBD Construction Updates

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized