says: (3/26/13 1:01 PM)
I was at a bar recently and the bartender said she had previously worked at one of Xavier Cervera's restaurants, and that (as previously speculated/reported) he had in fact sold them all--but to his brother. She said the brother came in and cleaned house and fired a lot of the long-time staff. Now, this was coming from someone who no longer had a job, so perhaps not the most un-biased source, but I thought it was interesting. JD--do you know anything more about what happened with ownership?
says: (3/26/13 1:03 PM)
Those are different blocks, Zoo, and don't have to do with EYA.
says: (3/26/13 1:15 PM)
908 2nd Street, SE ?? Did you mean 908 2nd pl.,SE?
says: (3/26/13 1:16 PM)
JH, I don't really know anything beyond what's been reported, much of which was from Xavier's point of view. Would be a good story for City Paper or the Post or the Hill Rag, to get the real story. (I'm doubting he'd talk to me.)
says: (3/26/13 1:17 PM)
No, I meant 2nd Street, but the apartment in the link you posted is on Square 769, running along the south side of L between 2nd and 3rd. That's the 1100 block of 2nd, not the 900 block.
says: (3/26/13 1:17 PM)
And at this point at least EYA has absolutely nothing to do with the Square 769 project. The square I'm talking about is 767.
says: (3/26/13 1:26 PM)
908 2nd St SE is between the old trash place and canal park.
908 2nd pl SE is between the canal park and Capitol Quarters link
says: (3/26/13 1:31 PM)
You're redirecting from the fact that your initial comment didn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. :-)
The permit says 2nd Street, but it's even numbers, and most people don't realize that both sides of Canal Park aren't 2nd Street (even permitting people). Considering there was soil boring equipment on the parking lot, that's what I'm going with.
says: (3/26/13 3:04 PM)
Could well be coincidence, but the EYA construction lot on 3rd ST between M and L had three large dumpsters dropped off this morning, where previously there had only been one. I know because the sound of them hitting the ground woke me up.
says: (3/26/13 3:07 PM)
Definitely a coincidence. If this were to happen, there'd be zoning hearings, building permits, etc. etc. Not going to see digging anytime soon.
(Plus, that 3rd and M site was/is used by the Canal Park construction people too.)
says: (3/26/13 3:11 PM)
Fair enough then! I'm glad someone knows what they're talking about, because I certainly don't.
says: (3/26/13 4:26 PM)
JD - do you know if these 147 units will be apartments or condos (or both)? Thanks.
says: (3/26/13 4:32 PM)
Let's hold off on specifics--the original plan was for 147 mixed-income rental units, who knows if that's the exact number that would end up happening. *IF* EYA were to do a deal like this, though, I'd certainly assume it would be condos, which is what they usually do.
But let's all just wait and see what comes down the pike. It's possible a deal may not even happen. One never knows....
says: (3/27/13 9:25 AM)
Whatever development occurs, the buildings along 3rd Street must contain a certain number of public housing units in order to return the number that was in the original Capper community, correct?
If EYA is involved, then I agree with JD that we'd be much more likely to see each new building constructed as a mini-CQ of sorts, with market-priced condos mixed in with the public housing units along with some form of the workforce program. Depending on the layouts (it'd be a little weird to see stratification of market-priced penthouse units with public housing in the basement) and other common features within the buildings, I'd think that'd make for a pretty great setup.
says: (3/27/13 10:12 AM)
Yes, all the Capper apartment buildings will be mixed-income. In a 2011 status update document I have from DCHA (not on my web site), here's the breakdown planned at that time for the apartment buildings:
Square 882 (south side of L between 5th and 7th):
195 units, 38 public housing
Square 769N (south side of L between 2nd and 3rd):
171 units, 34 public housing
Square 768 (Nats Lot T, between K/L/2nd/3rd):
295 units, 73 public housing
Square 767 (Nats Lot U, between I/K/2nd/3rd):
147 units, 66 public housing
Square 739 (Trash Transfer Station site):
322 units, 98 public housing
says: (3/27/13 4:41 PM)
EYA has a mixed-income condo project underway in Alexandria: The Condominiums at Old Town Commons, at 815 N. Patrick St. It's a five story, stick-built building, so adapting its plans for a six-story building on Square 767 wouldn't be too difficult. I've never known EYA to build high rises (the Oronoco that they're marketing now is an office building conversion), so I doubt that they'd build on any of the high-rise apartment sites to the south -- but more low-rise residential is planned at Square 882.
B in DC
says: (3/28/13 12:29 PM)
JD, do you think the numbers in that document mean 195 units, of which 38 are publich housing, or do you think they mean 195 units of market rate + 38 units of public housing? Not that it matters or is even accurate, but I was just curious at the percentage in each building. For Square 767 for insance, if it was the former calculation, then almost half would be public housing, but if the latter, a much lower percentage. Again, not immportant, but just curious.
says: (3/28/13 2:16 PM)
@B, I'm pretty sure it's the former, that it's 195 units of which 38 are public housing.
Also, I swapped Nats Lots T and U. The Squares and locations are correct, I just had the lot letters mixed up.
says: (3/28/13 4:34 PM)
That said, hopefully there will be very strict requirements placed on who will qualify for public housing.
says: (3/28/13 5:05 PM)
Hopefully. If I recall, the "affordable housing" being replaced in the area is 0-30% income, the lowest bracket.
"147 units, 66 public housing"
Seems like an awfully high percentage of the units to be subsidized housing, compared to the other buildings. The whole reason HOPE (kind of) works is because it dilutes concentration.
says: (3/31/13 2:50 PM)
@JH - I heard this exact story from a member of Barrack's Row Main St. so perhaps there is truth to it.
says: (4/4/13 3:24 PM)
@JH and @ScoopDC--I have inside knowledge and can confirm what you've heard is true. Let's hope things shake out and settle down inside that organization, but the new management is defintely getting very low grades for its handling of these restaurants, including the food going south in a number of them. (And no, I have not worked in any of those places)
One of the reasons that Park Tavern has taken so long to open is that the new management fired a long time Xavier employee who was supposed to be the head chef there and had had very good runs at a number of Xavier's other places. I guess they had a tough time finding a replacement.
I can also tell you, anectdotally, that I have personally seen one of the new management scream at one of his employees at the Hawk and Dove for seemingly no good reason.
Like I said, I hope this situation gets straightned out or who knows what will happen to a half a dozen local restarurants.
says: (4/4/13 3:28 PM)
What possible reason would they have for firing long time employees, unless they weren't doing their job well? Sounds insane. Ugh.
says: (4/4/13 3:32 PM)
I'll tell you one thing they can do to stave off catastrophe in terms of patrons--improve the damn menus, especially at the Hawk n Dove. The menu there, for a huge bar space, is just a travesty. It's not the place to try to be a fussy--just serve burgers and wings and sandwiches, for crying out loud.
Add a Comment:
Comments are closed for this post.
JDLand Comments RSS Feed