Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

Some do, but most people who live in tall buildings are childless. The idea that building tall buildings is all about, I dunno, getting into Deal is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

Pay to play. A lot of local stakeholders would like a piece of the action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

Some do, but most people who live in tall buildings are childless. The idea that building tall buildings is all about, I dunno, getting into Deal is silly.

You do know right now that there are about 2300 new mutlifamily units under construction or far along in the zoning process within a mile or so of Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

You clearly haven't been to Anacostia recently, if ever, and what other neighborhoods? Let's start with the stupid parking lot over the Cleveland Park Metro and the low rise development and 3 story parking garage over the Tenley metro and go from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

The Park N Shop in Cleveland Park is historically protected in an historic district. Nothing prevents the Dominos and CVS sites in Tenleytown from being redeveloped.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

You clearly haven't been to Anacostia recently, if ever, and what other neighborhoods? Let's start with the stupid parking lot over the Cleveland Park Metro and the low rise development and 3 story parking garage over the Tenley metro and go from there.

[Anonymous]

The Park N Shop in Cleveland Park is historically protected in an historic district. Nothing prevents the Dominos and CVS sites in Tenleytown from being redeveloped

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

Some do, but most people who live in tall buildings are childless. The idea that building tall buildings is all about, I dunno, getting into Deal is silly.

You do know right now that there are about 2300 new mutlifamily units under construction or far along in the zoning process within a mile or so of Deal?

Still not dense enough for the big developers, their Greater Greater Washington shills and their swallows in the Bowser administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

You clearly haven't been to Anacostia recently, if ever, and what other neighborhoods? Let's start with the stupid parking lot over the Cleveland Park Metro and the low rise development and 3 story parking garage over the Tenley metro and go from there.

Why do you consider parking lots stupid? A lot of people in DC would love a stupid parking lot to alleviate parking woes and support their commercial hubs. Why do you presume I havent been to Anacostia recently? Are you saying the rents are nosebleed there??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

In fact Richard Florida has a column about how cities with more parks and fuller tree canopies attract more ‘creatives’ and investment. Cities with more tree canopy are more likely to have cooler temperatures, better overall health and lower stress. Greenery, lots of natural light and open vistas are an economic and lifestyle advantage for Washington.