Comments on: City Paper Hotel, Drawings Circulating

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:57:11 +0000

Do you think the pool will be open to the neigborhood if you use the businesses within the hotel? In Los Angeles, at the Standard Hotel, you are free to come in and use the pool, no questions asked. And there’s a cool barbershop on the first floor. I hope they have one at this too like that. I think this will really add some glamour and glitz that Adams Morgan could use. I love the grit, but it’s time the area had a little bit more polish.

By: R. Peterson

R. Peterson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:21:32 +0000

From the rendering the building doesn’t look that much larger than it already is. Remember that church sets up high and you have to walk at a lot of stairs to get to the door of the building anyway. I do, however, have a problem with the developer conveniently forgetting to bring bring the “five different things” the writer requested. That smells like a cover up of some kind.

Love the idea of the hotel though. Doesn’t bother me a bit.

By: Mike DeBonis

Mike DeBonis — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:43:25 +0000

Mary: City Paper does not own the building any longer. The former owners of WCP and Chicago Reader, now known as Quarterfold, retained the building when the papers were sold to Creative Loafing. We are tenants. Your instincts are correct to think there might be a conflict, but there is no financial interest. if anything, we have a financial interest in the deal falling through, thus delaying moving costs and a potentially more expensive lease. You can add to that many staff members’ fondness for the place as it is now.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:06:48 +0000

Doesn’t City Paper, in fact, still have an interest in the success of this proposed hotel project? Has City Paper already gone to closing on the sale of its Champlain Street property?

It seems that City Paper has a conflict of interest in this rather uncritical report about a project that would radically change the Adams Morgan/Church of Christ Scientist skyline, not to mention impose another set of unwieldy, outsized commercial needs on a residential neighborhood.

Once it’s gone–the airspace, the light, the need to keep Adams Morgan at a human scale–it’s virtually impossible to get it back.

Good luck to City Paper, since it’s not your problem once you’re gone. But how about an honest disclosure regarding your conflict of interest in the reporting of this story?

Mary

By: Howard

Howard — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:55:20 +0000

I think Matt, ironically and acidentally, brought up a good point…this neighborhood could really use some new attention. There is no doubt that those bringing a chic boutique hotel to the area are concerned with the safety and appearance of the neighborhood, and will go to great lengths to make the area safer, cleaner, and generally better looking. I think the idea is great, and although the height of the property may be a concern, as a resident of the area there are many more things I am concerned with that take precedence. In other words, I will happily take some extra shade from the tall building than have another crappy little restaurant that closes 8 months after it opens, or an abandoned building where bums migrate. I think the hotel would no question to more good than bad for the neighborhood.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:56:42 +0000

Good luck finding your funky warehouse space “not terribly conducive to random employee muggings” in some of the proposed locations (e.g., near the National Arboretum). I’m sure going to-and-fro via Trinidad checkpoints each day will sit really well with your Creative Loafing staff–none of whom chafe in the presence of Police, I’m sure . . . .

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:59:30 +0000

What? A swimming pool in Adams Morgan and no one has yet made a ‘peeing in the pool’ joke?