And problem solved! |
|
It is so super easy. Density is really the result of commute to work and places of gatherings.
All we need to do is to distribute them evenly and utilize our beautiful endless green areas that surround big cities all the way up to the gray horizon. If we get away with offices and switch to telecommute, build more schools and cool town centers then we solved the problem. The question is do we want to solve the problem? |
Please don't! We have enough sprawl already. |
Nope it does not - please provide a citation of proposed changes in the Comp Plan to any single family zone in the city. Citing someone else on this thread making that claim without citations does not count. |
This is all very weird. "Increasing density" is the same thing as gentrification. And "gentle upscaling"? Is that a joke? These terms are all so Orwellian. It's all just gentrification. Call it what it is, instead of making up new names for it. |
Are you responding to one of your own posts again? |
The Committee of 100 also, as I recall, had conniptions about the unsightliness of overhead wires. |
No one wants to admit they're in favor of gentrification. |
Who will save Cleveland Park from Gentrification? |
Bless your heart. Sweetie, you're focusing on the wrong place. No one cares about Cleveland Park, which will be just fine. You should really be looking at the rest of the city. "In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016.... In portions of the Kingman Park and Capitol Hill neighborhoods, nearly 75 percent of the low-income populations have vanished, census information shows. In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent. Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data." https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html |
+1 |
That's weird - the smart growth (and biking crowd) were enthusiastic about Janeese George. FWIW on my Ward 4 email list most people just found Todd to be a complete lightweight. |
George is anti-developer. She made that clear. |
|
Hi, I'm a Ward 4 biking (maybe smart growth?) person. I don't think you're framing it right. The problem with Brandon Todd is that he is corrupt. Taking money from developers and then giving them what they want. The people who lose out tend to be poor and black long time residents of DC.
Janeese ran an independent campaign. So she has no reason to bend over backwards for developers. They'll make their money, although probably not as much, but in a way that really benefits DC residents not just political campaigns. Smart growth combined with someone looking out for the people of DC doesn't have to lead to displacement. For example, I think Janeese talked about developing an underutilized parking lot to create more housing, including affordable housing. Instead of displacement, it would increase the ability for low/middle income residents to live in DC. |
Really - when? George is enthusiastic about urbanism and understands where current policies fall short. Her responses to our questionnaire were thorough, and directly addressed topics like building more housing in wealthy parts of the city. She wrote: “If we continue to allow individual neighborhoods to block development or opt-out of upzoning it will exacerbate racial disparity.” Sounds like she may not be the Councilmember to spare Cleveland Park from gentrification. |