Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does this remind me so much of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

Look-it, we are not letting the Mayor off the hook for her goal to pave Ward 3.

Or her opposition to having a brighter moon. Ward 3 needs a brighter moon! Brighter moon now for Ward 3!

But not brighter street lights, please. The new model Cobra lights seem better suited to I -395 and seem jarring on residential local streets.

The brightness isn't the issue there, it's the color temperature. The high color temperature LED lights make everything look like a lightning flash in a horror movie.

I'll bite. Before you install a swath of new street lights, aren't they validated for things like color temperature in the environment. I remember reading stories about the damage done to the astronomers in Arizona when they changed the color of their street lights and they washed out the observatory optics. I just would have thought that before ddot purchased a batch of street lights, they might know what color they are.

I don't know about DDOT specifically, but in general: no, they're not. A DOT will put in the standard blue-white LED bulbs unless there's a reason not to. For example, if somebody has asked them to put in a warmer bulb. So ask them to. The magic words are "less than 3000K".

After the pages we can spend on density and government involvement with planning for density, it is amazing that there are not tomes written on street lighting and how to safely, beautifully and effectively illuminate various types of urban settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

After the pages we can spend on density and government involvement with planning for density, it is amazing that there are not tomes written on street lighting and how to safely, beautifully and effectively illuminate various types of urban settings.

There are.

[Anonymous]

FYI, DC is planning their LED replacements with street lights of 3000k or below, after feedback from the initial rounds of installation.

Source: https://wtop.com/dc/2018/12/dcs-next-generation-of-streetlights-could-solve-brightness-issues/

[Anonymous]

Wow. They actually took feedback on something. Cool. How about this: no thanks to density overdrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. They actually took feedback on something. Cool. How about this: no thanks to density overdrive.

It’s unclear whether DC has even followed through. On our DC street alone, there are still a few of the older street lights which cast a pleasing softer light. There are also some ugly cobra lights that flood the zone with bright orange light and then there are some LED lights that emit very bright white/blue light. It’s not necessary to illuminate the street so that one can easily read War and Peace outside at midnight, nor to light up the street scape like a high-security prison perimeter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

But wait, there’s more. In the proposed comp plan amendments, OP added a couple of provisions in addition to the upzoning changes proposed in the FLUM, that would give OP authority to override the FLUM — which is a document that the DC Council approves — by issuing a report and using it to persuade the Zoning Commission that low density zoning should be changed to much higher density zoning. When you combine this with the designated “study area” for a large residential swath on both sides of the Wisconsin Ave corridor (and other areas to be so designated), it’s like a hidden back door in a software program. In this case, it would enable OP and the mayor’s appointees to enact an ever more aggressive “gentle density” agenda. Gentle like a gloved fist, perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. They actually took feedback on something. Cool. How about this: no thanks to density overdrive.

It’s unclear whether DC has even followed through. On our DC street alone, there are still a few of the older street lights which cast a pleasing softer light. There are also some ugly cobra lights that flood the zone with bright orange light and then there are some LED lights that emit very bright white/blue light. It’s not necessary to illuminate the street so that one can easily read War and Peace outside at midnight, nor to light up the street scape like a high-security prison perimeter.

Yeah, that's the higher K LEDs. There is definitely a place for them, but nobody wants to live next to one. If it's shining in your window, you can ask them to shield it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

But wait, there’s more. In the proposed comp plan amendments, OP added a couple of provisions in addition to the upzoning changes proposed in the FLUM, that would give OP authority to override the FLUM — which is a document that the DC Council approves — by issuing a report and using it to persuade the Zoning Commission that low density zoning should be changed to much higher density zoning. When you combine this with the designated “study area” for a large residential swath on both sides of the Wisconsin Ave corridor (and other areas to be so designated), it’s like a hidden back door in a software program. In this case, it would enable OP and the mayor’s appointees to enact an ever more aggressive “gentle density” agenda. Gentle like a gloved fist, perhaps.

You are absolutely correct. This is exactly how OP has designed it. However, as the Density Bros/Bras on this thread will tell you, this is not legislation, therefor you do not need to worry your little head. Just wait until the City Council adopts the 'proposals'/'recommendations' and then you can start worrying...a little, because at that point it is still not legislation signed by the Mayor.

Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

But wait, there’s more. In the proposed comp plan amendments, OP added a couple of provisions in addition to the upzoning changes proposed in the FLUM, that would give OP authority to override the FLUM — which is a document that the DC Council approves — by issuing a report and using it to persuade the Zoning Commission that low density zoning should be changed to much higher density zoning. When you combine this with the designated “study area” for a large residential swath on both sides of the Wisconsin Ave corridor (and other areas to be so designated), it’s like a hidden back door in a software program. In this case, it would enable OP and the mayor’s appointees to enact an ever more aggressive “gentle density” agenda. Gentle like a gloved fist, perhaps.

Here we go again - another nutty accusation.

OP can only make recommendations - they cannot override the FLUM.

Maybe you can provided a citation to this alleged last minute insertion that somehow for the first time ever is being raised on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG this is truly nuts.

And I am not a lawyer just someone who understands how laws get enacted in DC and let me tell you it isn't rocket science though it is akin to sausage being made.

For "gentle density" to become policy in DC it needs to be incorporated into legislation.

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Hmmm...NOBODY ever said that there was legislation to incorporate 'gentle density'. Everybody has maintained that the Comp Plan and the Single Family Zoning report both 'propose' and 'recommend' gentle density. I believe even the steps have been enumerated here.

So now that you have thrown your little tantrum and moved the goal posts again, are we going to get down to the discussion you proposed or are you going to 'conflate' (to use your term) COVID treatments with housing policy? (technically you probably can continue conflating because the thread is about how COVID may impact density planning)

So all in for replacing the vape shop with a COVID therapeutics Shoppe?

Note, however, that the proposed FLUM amendments designate a demarcated local plan area for an area from Friendship Heights south to the Cathedral and including several blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave - with much overlap on the recommended transit-oriented gentle density recommendation in this area. The detail in the FLUM amendments indicate that it would give administrative authority to DC agencies (ie, OP) to enact changes like more density in SFH zones. So there is a hidden backdoor to enact some gentle density through the Comp Plan amendments and FLUM changes.

But wait, there’s more. In the proposed comp plan amendments, OP added a couple of provisions in addition to the upzoning changes proposed in the FLUM, that would give OP authority to override the FLUM — which is a document that the DC Council approves — by issuing a report and using it to persuade the Zoning Commission that low density zoning should be changed to much higher density zoning. When you combine this with the designated “study area” for a large residential swath on both sides of the Wisconsin Ave corridor (and other areas to be so designated), it’s like a hidden back door in a software program. In this case, it would enable OP and the mayor’s appointees to enact an ever more aggressive “gentle density” agenda. Gentle like a gloved fist, perhaps.

Here we go again - another nutty accusation.

OP can only make recommendations - they cannot override the FLUM.

Maybe you can provided a citation to this alleged last minute insertion that somehow for the first time ever is being raised on DCUM?

I'd like to explore this further too

[Anonymous]

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Genuine question here as a reader of this thread:

As per the Plan DC website run by the Office of Planning, the Comp Plan becomes legislation upon approval. So how are the proposals and recommendations in it right now, not considered as potential legislation if the current Comp Plan is accepted by the Council?

[Anonymous]

Density Bros are so tiresome. It’s tough always having to blog from mom’s basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Genuine question here as a reader of this thread:

As per the Plan DC website run by the Office of Planning, the Comp Plan becomes legislation upon approval. So how are the proposals and recommendations in it right now, not considered as potential legislation if the current Comp Plan is accepted by the Council?

PP, you are confused about this because the process is confusing. In fact, the OP would probably like you to be confused. The OP's own guidance has contradictory information about the very subject that you bring up, but they attempt to clarify that the Comp Plan DOES NOT have the force of law or regulation as well. The following is a quote from Andrew Trueblood's guidance that he wrote each ANC upon receiving their COMP plan markups.

Background on Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
The Comp Plan is a high-level guiding document that sets an inclusive, long-term vision for the
physical development of the District of Columbia. The purpose of the Comp Plan is to help guide
the District’s growth and change, resulting in positive outcomes for both current and future
residents of the District.

The Comp Plan establishes a context and sets broad goals to inform public decision-making and
future fine-grained planning efforts. It informs zoning regulations and capital budgeting.
However, it does not have the force of law or regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Genuine question here as a reader of this thread:

As per the Plan DC website run by the Office of Planning, the Comp Plan becomes legislation upon approval. So how are the proposals and recommendations in it right now, not considered as potential legislation if the current Comp Plan is accepted by the Council?

PP, you are confused about this because the process is confusing. In fact, the OP would probably like you to be confused. The OP's own guidance has contradictory information about the very subject that you bring up, but they attempt to clarify that the Comp Plan DOES NOT have the force of law or regulation as well. The following is a quote from Andrew Trueblood's guidance that he wrote each ANC upon receiving their COMP plan markups.

Background on Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
The Comp Plan is a high-level guiding document that sets an inclusive, long-term vision for the
physical development of the District of Columbia. The purpose of the Comp Plan is to help guide
the District’s growth and change, resulting in positive outcomes for both current and future
residents of the District.

The Comp Plan establishes a context and sets broad goals to inform public decision-making and
future fine-grained planning efforts. It informs zoning regulations and capital budgeting.
However, it does not have the force of law or regulation.

Trueblood is blowing smoke. The Comp Plan absolutely has the force of law. That’s why the DC Council and not the Zoning Board enacts it. The Com Plan is very important for a variety of reasons including to Planned Unit Developments, which can vary from zoning if the BZA determines that they are “not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan” - a fairly loose standard. Trueblood is acting like the CP is no big deal, as the Bowser admin is making a full court press to get the Council to approve it, even arguing that it will address the pandemic ! They are shameless and disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Currently there is no legislative proposal that incorporates "gentle density."

If you believe there is a proposal or that it is incorporated somewhere in the proposal DCOP sent to DC Council more than a month ago to update the Comp Plan please provide a citation for where it is in that legislation.

Otherwise all we have is a report with recommendations and you can repeat it all you want that it is a formal proposal but that will never make it true.

Genuine question here as a reader of this thread:

As per the Plan DC website run by the Office of Planning, the Comp Plan becomes legislation upon approval. So how are the proposals and recommendations in it right now, not considered as potential legislation if the current Comp Plan is accepted by the Council?

PP, you are confused about this because the process is confusing. In fact, the OP would probably like you to be confused. The OP's own guidance has contradictory information about the very subject that you bring up, but they attempt to clarify that the Comp Plan DOES NOT have the force of law or regulation as well. The following is a quote from Andrew Trueblood's guidance that he wrote each ANC upon receiving their COMP plan markups.

Background on Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
The Comp Plan is a high-level guiding document that sets an inclusive, long-term vision for the
physical development of the District of Columbia. The purpose of the Comp Plan is to help guide
the District’s growth and change, resulting in positive outcomes for both current and future
residents of the District.

The Comp Plan establishes a context and sets broad goals to inform public decision-making and
future fine-grained planning efforts. It informs zoning regulations and capital budgeting.
However, it does not have the force of law or regulation.

This is so DC. The actual Comp Plan document states that it is legislation once approved while the guy running the office publishing it waves his hands and says that it is informational and not legislative.

"These aren't the droids you looking for..."