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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the largest and densest development projects under construction in DC right now, after the Wharf, is CityRidge, across from Sidwell Friends and bordering McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park.

687 units on 10 acres is not very dense.

There has been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3 (and plans for more) in the past decade. Many people have enumerated it - up to and including AU constructing more dorms (not to mentions class buildings) . I mention dorms because AU students who have dorms are leaving apartments and sublets in the area available to others. Mary Cheh needs to acknowledge this building boom, as does the Council, as does Mayor Bowser. NO to the Comp Plan. No more ramrodding.

No there has not been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3.

The total construction is Ward 3 in the last decade is less than single projects in other parts of the city.

Far less than what is coming to Walter Reed.

Far less than what has been built in NOMA.

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

This statement makes no sense.

You are claiming that there is less building in Ward 3 than there is in a future project at Walter Reed? So what? There has been more building to date.

Less building than in single projects in other Wards? I'd have to do the math, but how many units were built with Cathedral Commons, Frequency, Tenley View, 5333 Connecticut.

AU dormitories. (Notice how the density crowd never count university population into the equation.)

And this is not including the 'vintage' housing along Connecticut, Cathedral and Wisconsin. Density Bros/Bras, think that because there is too much setback, those developments waste land. You ccould make the units half the size and serve more people. They will never be happy, so stop trying to make them happy.

Are you with a straight face claiming that Ward 3 has had comparable levels of development over the last 15 years than other DC neighborhoods? By citing a few hundred units that have been built and the AU Dorms?

Really?

Did you miss where DC has added over 100,000 people and the population in Ward 3 has barely budged?

Part of your broader point is in fact valid - there are parts of Ward 3 that are actually pretty dense and the area around AU is actually one of the densest in the entire city in terms of population and dwelling units.

And despite having poor transportation infra it is still a very desirable and livable area.

And there are parts of Ward 3 that are not dense at all like most of the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So we know that density is not in fact a problem in Ward 3 because we have parts of the Ward that are fairly dense and oddly many of those parts don't have good Metro access but are still great neighborhoods.

So now that we've established that the dense areas of Ward 3 are actually pretty nice explain what the problem is with adding some density to the parts of Ward 3 that are lacking it?

AU Student here. Why are you claiming AU does not have great public transportation access? Starting to think you actually are making all of this up. As an AU student, I would like the metro to be open later, however, I hear that is a citywide desire and not just us students.

Weird for an AU student to wade into this thread on page 82.

The area around AU is not well served by public transportation and of course the area around AU is not just AU students.

The AU shuttle is great but only goes to a few places and is almost exclusively used by AU students.

The Mass Ave WMATA buses are pretty infrequent especially off peak.

So no relative to areas with Metrorail stations or high frequency bus corridors the area around AU does not have great public transportation.

[Anonymous]

Increasing density seems pointless to me, but especially pointless in Ward 3. Any new housing is going to be bought up by rich white people trying to get their kids in schools like Murch and Eaton. Sure, they're leaving somewhere else, and someone else is taking their old place, and that frees up their old place for someone else, and on and on down the line. I guess in the end increasing density lowers housing prices in Manassas. Yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the largest and densest development projects under construction in DC right now, after the Wharf, is CityRidge, across from Sidwell Friends and bordering McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park.

687 units on 10 acres is not very dense.

There has been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3 (and plans for more) in the past decade. Many people have enumerated it - up to and including AU constructing more dorms (not to mentions class buildings) . I mention dorms because AU students who have dorms are leaving apartments and sublets in the area available to others. Mary Cheh needs to acknowledge this building boom, as does the Council, as does Mayor Bowser. NO to the Comp Plan. No more ramrodding.

No there has not been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3.

The total construction is Ward 3 in the last decade is less than single projects in other parts of the city.

Far less than what is coming to Walter Reed.

Far less than what has been built in NOMA.

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

This statement makes no sense.

You are claiming that there is less building in Ward 3 than there is in a future project at Walter Reed? So what? There has been more building to date.

Less building than in single projects in other Wards? I'd have to do the math, but how many units were built with Cathedral Commons, Frequency, Tenley View, 5333 Connecticut.

AU dormitories. (Notice how the density crowd never count university population into the equation.)

And this is not including the 'vintage' housing along Connecticut, Cathedral and Wisconsin. Density Bros/Bras, think that because there is too much setback, those developments waste land. You ccould make the units half the size and serve more people. They will never be happy, so stop trying to make them happy.

Are you with a straight face claiming that Ward 3 has had comparable levels of development over the last 15 years than other DC neighborhoods? By citing a few hundred units that have been built and the AU Dorms?

Really?

Did you miss where DC has added over 100,000 people and the population in Ward 3 has barely budged?

Part of your broader point is in fact valid - there are parts of Ward 3 that are actually pretty dense and the area around AU is actually one of the densest in the entire city in terms of population and dwelling units.

And despite having poor transportation infra it is still a very desirable and livable area.

And there are parts of Ward 3 that are not dense at all like most of the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So we know that density is not in fact a problem in Ward 3 because we have parts of the Ward that are fairly dense and oddly many of those parts don't have good Metro access but are still great neighborhoods.

So now that we've established that the dense areas of Ward 3 are actually pretty nice explain what the problem is with adding some density to the parts of Ward 3 that are lacking it?

AU Student here. Why are you claiming AU does not have great public transportation access? Starting to think you actually are making all of this up. As an AU student, I would like the metro to be open later, however, I hear that is a citywide desire and not just us students.

Weird for an AU student to wade into this thread on page 82.

The area around AU is not well served by public transportation and of course the area around AU is not just AU students.

The AU shuttle is great but only goes to a few places and is almost exclusively used by AU students.

The Mass Ave WMATA buses are pretty infrequent especially off peak.

So no relative to areas with Metrorail stations or high frequency bus corridors the area around AU does not have great public transportation.

AU busses are available for all takers. But you would not know that as you have obviously never actually stepped foot near there.

[Anonymous]

This quote from Janeese makes me laugh. At least she gets that NYC level density is not the goal.

"We don’t need to become Manhattan to improve density, achieving Paris’s density levels would be a big step."

Paris, if you eliminated its suburbs, is 5 times more dense than DC is presently with 56,000 people per square mile. DC remember has 11,000 people per square mile. IF you included the Paris suburbs, a mere 2 kilometers from the center of the city, all of a sudden you are at 68,000 people per square mile, only 2,000 people per square mile shy of Manhattan.

So make no mistake, the goals here by the Mayor and the City Council are MASSIVE densification and gentrification.

In fairness to Janeese, so that the Density Bros/Bras do not think I am chery picking data, she does follow up her Paris density goal with a statement that she wants to do this without displacing low income persons. So this would not be your standard gentrification.

"Finally, housing production is critical but it won’t solve all our problems. I think it is important that we pair production with strong tenant protection laws and a serious preservation strategy where we identify the affordable homes we have and ensure they don’t fall into disrepair, and that current residents are not displaced and can continue to afford to stay in their neighborhoods."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the largest and densest development projects under construction in DC right now, after the Wharf, is CityRidge, across from Sidwell Friends and bordering McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park.

687 units on 10 acres is not very dense.

There has been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3 (and plans for more) in the past decade. Many people have enumerated it - up to and including AU constructing more dorms (not to mentions class buildings) . I mention dorms because AU students who have dorms are leaving apartments and sublets in the area available to others. Mary Cheh needs to acknowledge this building boom, as does the Council, as does Mayor Bowser. NO to the Comp Plan. No more ramrodding.

No there has not been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3.

The total construction is Ward 3 in the last decade is less than single projects in other parts of the city.

Far less than what is coming to Walter Reed.

Far less than what has been built in NOMA.

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

This statement makes no sense.

You are claiming that there is less building in Ward 3 than there is in a future project at Walter Reed? So what? There has been more building to date.

Less building than in single projects in other Wards? I'd have to do the math, but how many units were built with Cathedral Commons, Frequency, Tenley View, 5333 Connecticut.

AU dormitories. (Notice how the density crowd never count university population into the equation.)

And this is not including the 'vintage' housing along Connecticut, Cathedral and Wisconsin. Density Bros/Bras, think that because there is too much setback, those developments waste land. You ccould make the units half the size and serve more people. They will never be happy, so stop trying to make them happy.

Are you with a straight face claiming that Ward 3 has had comparable levels of development over the last 15 years than other DC neighborhoods? By citing a few hundred units that have been built and the AU Dorms?

Really?

Did you miss where DC has added over 100,000 people and the population in Ward 3 has barely budged?

Part of your broader point is in fact valid - there are parts of Ward 3 that are actually pretty dense and the area around AU is actually one of the densest in the entire city in terms of population and dwelling units.

And despite having poor transportation infra it is still a very desirable and livable area.

And there are parts of Ward 3 that are not dense at all like most of the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So we know that density is not in fact a problem in Ward 3 because we have parts of the Ward that are fairly dense and oddly many of those parts don't have good Metro access but are still great neighborhoods.

So now that we've established that the dense areas of Ward 3 are actually pretty nice explain what the problem is with adding some density to the parts of Ward 3 that are lacking it?

AU Student here. Why are you claiming AU does not have great public transportation access? Starting to think you actually are making all of this up. As an AU student, I would like the metro to be open later, however, I hear that is a citywide desire and not just us students.

Weird for an AU student to wade into this thread on page 82.

The area around AU is not well served by public transportation and of course the area around AU is not just AU students.

The AU shuttle is great but only goes to a few places and is almost exclusively used by AU students.

The Mass Ave WMATA buses are pretty infrequent especially off peak.

So no relative to areas with Metrorail stations or high frequency bus corridors the area around AU does not have great public transportation.

The AU shuttle goes straight to metro and shopping hub and back; they also pretty much let everyone hop on and off, but when I lived by AU I walked. It's a hop to Glover park OR Tenley or Wisconsin Buses. Hydrocy/Density Dude you are losing all credibility to speak to the neighborhood infrastructure.
AU student--I haven't taken metro in a long time (I'm a bus person), but was surprised the other day to find out how early it is closing of late. That certainly is something the density people who claim they are 'green' should be advocating for. Why are we building housing next to mass transport that closes at 8/9 exactly? if their goal is less traffic, maybe they should focus their endless advocating on improving mass transit. That would help everyone, everywhere without having to build more concrete shoeboxes on our remaining green spaces.

[Anonymous]

If DC wants to build up the density, where do they find enough people who want to move in the high-rise Apartment buildings?

[Anonymous]

If they definitely the police i predict major white flight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they definitely the police i predict major white flight

*Defund the police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This quote from Janeese makes me laugh. At least she gets that NYC level density is not the goal.

"We don’t need to become Manhattan to improve density, achieving Paris’s density levels would be a big step."

Paris, if you eliminated its suburbs, is 5 times more dense than DC is presently with 56,000 people per square mile. DC remember has 11,000 people per square mile. IF you included the Paris suburbs, a mere 2 kilometers from the center of the city, all of a sudden you are at 68,000 people per square mile, only 2,000 people per square mile shy of Manhattan.

So make no mistake, the goals here by the Mayor and the City Council are MASSIVE densification and gentrification.

In fairness to Janeese, so that the Density Bros/Bras do not think I am chery picking data, she does follow up her Paris density goal with a statement that she wants to do this without displacing low income persons. So this would not be your standard gentrification.

"Finally, housing production is critical but it won’t solve all our problems. I think it is important that we pair production with strong tenant protection laws and a serious preservation strategy where we identify the affordable homes we have and ensure they don’t fall into disrepair, and that current residents are not displaced and can continue to afford to stay in their neighborhoods."

How much stronger could they get?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This quote from Janeese makes me laugh. At least she gets that NYC level density is not the goal.

"We don’t need to become Manhattan to improve density, achieving Paris’s density levels would be a big step."

Paris, if you eliminated its suburbs, is 5 times more dense than DC is presently with 56,000 people per square mile. DC remember has 11,000 people per square mile. IF you included the Paris suburbs, a mere 2 kilometers from the center of the city, all of a sudden you are at 68,000 people per square mile, only 2,000 people per square mile shy of Manhattan.

So make no mistake, the goals here by the Mayor and the City Council are MASSIVE densification and gentrification.

In fairness to Janeese, so that the Density Bros/Bras do not think I am chery picking data, she does follow up her Paris density goal with a statement that she wants to do this without displacing low income persons. So this would not be your standard gentrification.

"Finally, housing production is critical but it won’t solve all our problems. I think it is important that we pair production with strong tenant protection laws and a serious preservation strategy where we identify the affordable homes we have and ensure they don’t fall into disrepair, and that current residents are not displaced and can continue to afford to stay in their neighborhoods."

Janeese will save Cleveland Park and Tenleytown from gentrification!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the largest and densest development projects under construction in DC right now, after the Wharf, is CityRidge, across from Sidwell Friends and bordering McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park.

687 units on 10 acres is not very dense.

There has been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3 (and plans for more) in the past decade. Many people have enumerated it - up to and including AU constructing more dorms (not to mentions class buildings) . I mention dorms because AU students who have dorms are leaving apartments and sublets in the area available to others. Mary Cheh needs to acknowledge this building boom, as does the Council, as does Mayor Bowser. NO to the Comp Plan. No more ramrodding.

No there has not been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3.

The total construction is Ward 3 in the last decade is less than single projects in other parts of the city.

Far less than what is coming to Walter Reed.

Far less than what has been built in NOMA.

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

This statement makes no sense.

You are claiming that there is less building in Ward 3 than there is in a future project at Walter Reed? So what? There has been more building to date.

Less building than in single projects in other Wards? I'd have to do the math, but how many units were built with Cathedral Commons, Frequency, Tenley View, 5333 Connecticut.

AU dormitories. (Notice how the density crowd never count university population into the equation.)

And this is not including the 'vintage' housing along Connecticut, Cathedral and Wisconsin. Density Bros/Bras, think that because there is too much setback, those developments waste land. You ccould make the units half the size and serve more people. They will never be happy, so stop trying to make them happy.

Are you with a straight face claiming that Ward 3 has had comparable levels of development over the last 15 years than other DC neighborhoods? By citing a few hundred units that have been built and the AU Dorms?

Really?

Did you miss where DC has added over 100,000 people and the population in Ward 3 has barely budged?

Part of your broader point is in fact valid - there are parts of Ward 3 that are actually pretty dense and the area around AU is actually one of the densest in the entire city in terms of population and dwelling units.

And despite having poor transportation infra it is still a very desirable and livable area.

And there are parts of Ward 3 that are not dense at all like most of the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So we know that density is not in fact a problem in Ward 3 because we have parts of the Ward that are fairly dense and oddly many of those parts don't have good Metro access but are still great neighborhoods.

So now that we've established that the dense areas of Ward 3 are actually pretty nice explain what the problem is with adding some density to the parts of Ward 3 that are lacking it?

AU Student here. Why are you claiming AU does not have great public transportation access? Starting to think you actually are making all of this up. As an AU student, I would like the metro to be open later, however, I hear that is a citywide desire and not just us students.

Weird for an AU student to wade into this thread on page 82.

The area around AU is not well served by public transportation and of course the area around AU is not just AU students.

The AU shuttle is great but only goes to a few places and is almost exclusively used by AU students.

The Mass Ave WMATA buses are pretty infrequent especially off peak.

So no relative to areas with Metrorail stations or high frequency bus corridors the area around AU does not have great public transportation.

The AU shuttle goes straight to metro and shopping hub and back; they also pretty much let everyone hop on and off, but when I lived by AU I walked. It's a hop to Glover park OR Tenley or Wisconsin Buses. Hydrocy/Density Dude you are losing all credibility to speak to the neighborhood infrastructure.
AU student--I haven't taken metro in a long time (I'm a bus person), but was surprised the other day to find out how early it is closing of late. That certainly is something the density people who claim they are 'green' should be advocating for. Why are we building housing next to mass transport that closes at 8/9 exactly? if their goal is less traffic, maybe they should focus their endless advocating on improving mass transit. That would help everyone, everywhere without having to build more concrete shoeboxes on our remaining green spaces.

So much conflation and so many lies in one post!

Green space being converted to concrete boxes - check!

Density advocates aren't transit advocates so they are hypocrites and we should not have additional density - check!

Density advocates aren't green but opponents of additional density are - check!

Maybe if you'd been taking your hydroxychloroquine these past few weeks you would have gotten out of the house and realized that public transit hours have been cut - those of us actually using public transit of course are aware of these changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density seems pointless to me, but especially pointless in Ward 3. Any new housing is going to be bought up by rich white people trying to get their kids in schools like Murch and Eaton. Sure, they're leaving somewhere else, and someone else is taking their old place, and that frees up their old place for someone else, and on and on down the line. I guess in the end increasing density lowers housing prices in Manassas. Yay!

Or rich POCs; just saying. Most POC who are able choose to live in / send their kids to schools like you mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the largest and densest development projects under construction in DC right now, after the Wharf, is CityRidge, across from Sidwell Friends and bordering McLean Gardens and Cleveland Park.

687 units on 10 acres is not very dense.

There has been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3 (and plans for more) in the past decade. Many people have enumerated it - up to and including AU constructing more dorms (not to mentions class buildings) . I mention dorms because AU students who have dorms are leaving apartments and sublets in the area available to others. Mary Cheh needs to acknowledge this building boom, as does the Council, as does Mayor Bowser. NO to the Comp Plan. No more ramrodding.

No there has not been an unprecedented amount of construction in Ward 3.

The total construction is Ward 3 in the last decade is less than single projects in other parts of the city.

Far less than what is coming to Walter Reed.

Far less than what has been built in NOMA.

Please stop spouting this nonsense.

This statement makes no sense.

You are claiming that there is less building in Ward 3 than there is in a future project at Walter Reed? So what? There has been more building to date.

Less building than in single projects in other Wards? I'd have to do the math, but how many units were built with Cathedral Commons, Frequency, Tenley View, 5333 Connecticut.

AU dormitories. (Notice how the density crowd never count university population into the equation.)

And this is not including the 'vintage' housing along Connecticut, Cathedral and Wisconsin. Density Bros/Bras, think that because there is too much setback, those developments waste land. You ccould make the units half the size and serve more people. They will never be happy, so stop trying to make them happy.

Are you with a straight face claiming that Ward 3 has had comparable levels of development over the last 15 years than other DC neighborhoods? By citing a few hundred units that have been built and the AU Dorms?

Really?

Did you miss where DC has added over 100,000 people and the population in Ward 3 has barely budged?

Part of your broader point is in fact valid - there are parts of Ward 3 that are actually pretty dense and the area around AU is actually one of the densest in the entire city in terms of population and dwelling units.

And despite having poor transportation infra it is still a very desirable and livable area.

And there are parts of Ward 3 that are not dense at all like most of the Wisconsin Avenue corridor.

So we know that density is not in fact a problem in Ward 3 because we have parts of the Ward that are fairly dense and oddly many of those parts don't have good Metro access but are still great neighborhoods.

So now that we've established that the dense areas of Ward 3 are actually pretty nice explain what the problem is with adding some density to the parts of Ward 3 that are lacking it?

AU Student here. Why are you claiming AU does not have great public transportation access? Starting to think you actually are making all of this up. As an AU student, I would like the metro to be open later, however, I hear that is a citywide desire and not just us students.

Weird for an AU student to wade into this thread on page 82.

The area around AU is not well served by public transportation and of course the area around AU is not just AU students.

The AU shuttle is great but only goes to a few places and is almost exclusively used by AU students.

The Mass Ave WMATA buses are pretty infrequent especially off peak.

So no relative to areas with Metrorail stations or high frequency bus corridors the area around AU does not have great public transportation.

The AU shuttle goes straight to metro and shopping hub and back; they also pretty much let everyone hop on and off, but when I lived by AU I walked. It's a hop to Glover park OR Tenley or Wisconsin Buses. Hydrocy/Density Dude you are losing all credibility to speak to the neighborhood infrastructure.
AU student--I haven't taken metro in a long time (I'm a bus person), but was surprised the other day to find out how early it is closing of late. That certainly is something the density people who claim they are 'green' should be advocating for. Why are we building housing next to mass transport that closes at 8/9 exactly? if their goal is less traffic, maybe they should focus their endless advocating on improving mass transit. That would help everyone, everywhere without having to build more concrete shoeboxes on our remaining green spaces.

So much conflation and so many lies in one post!

Green space being converted to concrete boxes - check!

Density advocates aren't transit advocates so they are hypocrites and we should not have additional density - check!

Density advocates aren't green but opponents of additional density are - check!

Maybe if you'd been taking your hydroxychloroquine these past few weeks you would have gotten out of the house and realized that public transit hours have been cut - those of us actually using public transit of course are aware of these changes.

"Density-derangement syndrome"? Maybe we can get you something tonic .

[Anonymous]

So much conflation and so many lies in one post!

Green space being converted to concrete boxes - check!

Density advocates aren't transit advocates so they are hypocrites and we should not have additional density - check!

Density advocates aren't green but opponents of additional density are - check!

Maybe if you'd been taking your hydroxychloroquine these past few weeks you would have gotten out of the house and realized that public transit hours have been cut - those of us actually using public transit of course are aware of these changes.

Dear Hydroxydude,

You are giving other Density Bros and Bras a bad name. The conversion of green space to impermeable concrete is happening and while the rain traps and cisterns are nice, it is not the same. Your apparent lack of knowledge about public transportation that you are supporting make people question your knowledge on anything. Your argument that AU is not walkable and does not have access to transit is laughable and illustrates that you argue from a script rather than knowledge of DC.

Come on over to AU Park or Tenleytown and enjoy some walkable city life. Heck look them up on any walkability index and they are some of the top scores in the city. Your cherished Walter Reed Campus falls way below. Oh and interestingly Takoma Park metro stop is farther from Walter Reed Campus than Tenleytown metro is from AU. Maybe they can call AU up and learn how to run a FREE shuttle. The walk is less pleasant as well to Takoma, but that almost sounds like I am rubbing it in.

Thank you

[Anonymous]

No gatherings of more than 10 ppl. dC is barely in Phase 1 and Phase 4 is 50 people gatherings.

Thank you,
The Mgmt.