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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You realize, don’t you, that there are thousands of new housing units in Ward 3 that are under construction or in projects getting ready to break ground. They range from City Ridge (Fannie site) to 4000 Wisconsin next door (with over 1500 residences between them), the Lady Bird in AU Park, several new buildings in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights, just to name as few. A good question is where is the local school capacity for these residences, even if only 20 percent have kids of school age? What is worrisome is that the proposed Comp Plan amendments actually weaken the requirement to consider local infrastructure, such as schools, in approving large development projects!

"Only 20%"? 20% would be very high. Currently in Ward 3, about 15% of households (all housing type) have children (all ages)

The poster said that even if only 20 percent of the 'incoming' have kids. He did not mention anything about the existing residents, though as you were quick to state it was 20% in the last snapshot and is growing at a rate of 26% over the last four years. So that would seem to be a valid school planning factor.

Is it a common belief that only single people want to move into the city to occupy this new, denser housing? Or just couples with dogs?

Why would households consisting of new residents of large multi-family buildings have children at a higher rate than existing residents? Why would they disproportionately attract households with school-aged children?

Two data points: if you look at neighborhoods like AU Park and north Cleveland Park it seems that most new homebuyers all have kids as do many existing housholds. The City Ridge developer on Wisconsin Ave explicitly said at a community meeting that they viewed a target market for many of their units as being couples or singles with one or two kids who wanted easy access to Hearst/Janney, Deal and Wilson. So developers are building the school pipeline, but where’s the added school capacity. In some localities, they actually make developers pay into a school and infrastructure fund. But in DC Bowser’s pals in the development sector wouldn’t like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in DC, and I'm really liking it. It's not like NYC where it's hard to find space. I can go for a walk and maintain plenty of distance, but I can also have a porch happy hour where I can chat with all my neighbors while we are all on our own porches. I can be by myself yet not feel lonely.

+1

DC is livable. NYC is not.

I vote for less density. More green space, fewer condo buildings.

Please provide a single example in DC of green space that was converted to condos or any other type of housing?

One example: Ward 3 homeless shelter

Nope please try again. The Ward 3 homeless shelter was constructed on part of the police stations parking lot.

Wow, you really do not know what went into that project do you? Keep living in your make believe world where construction occurs on existing parking lots.

When you do read up on it, understand that, I realize that the plot of land is owned by DC. My point was that it was green, they changed the zoning to accommodate it and now it is concrete. Lots of examples, both private and public that fit this example. AU Nebraska Ave development. I understand it is private. It used to have a setback and now is built from the sidewalk to the developments behind it. Is it awful? No, it is actually attractive, but it has changed that open walk considerably. Now imagine the entire corridor like that.

It's strange because I live nearby, attended most of the public meetings about the shelter and the Giant down the block is my grocery store so I go by at least weekly.

The shelter is clearly on the part of the police stations parking lot to the west of the station.

I'm really not sure how else to respond to you - the plans are on-line all over the place and if we weren't social distancing I'd offer to meet you there to show you but somehow I have the feeling you'd deny things that are right in front of you.

And the AU Nebraska Ave development you must be really ignorant about because in that case that entire lot was covered by an asphalt parking lot. Now rather than being used to store cars (hows that for a green use of land in a space constrained city??) the lot now houses people in an entirely LEED certified complex and there is now a green buffer with several hundred trees on the lot that weren't there before.

So yeah those are both in fact great examples of what we should be doing in a warming world - replacing surface parking lots with housing.

Did you want to try again to find an example of green space converted to housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in DC, and I'm really liking it. It's not like NYC where it's hard to find space. I can go for a walk and maintain plenty of distance, but I can also have a porch happy hour where I can chat with all my neighbors while we are all on our own porches. I can be by myself yet not feel lonely.

+1

DC is livable. NYC is not.

I vote for less density. More green space, fewer condo buildings.

Please provide a single example in DC of green space that was converted to condos or any other type of housing?

One example: Ward 3 homeless shelter

Nope please try again. The Ward 3 homeless shelter was constructed on part of the police stations parking lot.

Wow, you really do not know what went into that project do you? Keep living in your make believe world where construction occurs on existing parking lots.

When you do read up on it, understand that, I realize that the plot of land is owned by DC. My point was that it was green, they changed the zoning to accommodate it and now it is concrete. Lots of examples, both private and public that fit this example. AU Nebraska Ave development. I understand it is private. It used to have a setback and now is built from the sidewalk to the developments behind it. Is it awful? No, it is actually attractive, but it has changed that open walk considerably. Now imagine the entire corridor like that.

It's strange because I live nearby, attended most of the public meetings about the shelter and the Giant down the block is my grocery store so I go by at least weekly.

The shelter is clearly on the part of the police stations parking lot to the west of the station.

I'm really not sure how else to respond to you - the plans are on-line all over the place and if we weren't social distancing I'd offer to meet you there to show you but somehow I have the feeling you'd deny things that are right in front of you.

And the AU Nebraska Ave development you must be really ignorant about because in that case that entire lot was covered by an asphalt parking lot. Now rather than being used to store cars (hows that for a green use of land in a space constrained city??) the lot now houses people in an entirely LEED certified complex and there is now a green buffer with several hundred trees on the lot that weren't there before.

So yeah those are both in fact great examples of what we should be doing in a warming world - replacing surface parking lots with housing.

Did you want to try again to find an example of green space converted to housing?

No I remember when it was a parking lot...and before it was a parking lot.

The footprint of the single family interim housing is not the parking lot only. In fact, there is now an improved parking lot, for the police, the housing workers, but not the residents. Because displaced families never have cars and are not burdened by parking tickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in DC, and I'm really liking it. It's not like NYC where it's hard to find space. I can go for a walk and maintain plenty of distance, but I can also have a porch happy hour where I can chat with all my neighbors while we are all on our own porches. I can be by myself yet not feel lonely.

+1

DC is livable. NYC is not.

I vote for less density. More green space, fewer condo buildings.

Please provide a single example in DC of green space that was converted to condos or any other type of housing?

One example: Ward 3 homeless shelter

Nope please try again. The Ward 3 homeless shelter was constructed on part of the police stations parking lot.

Wow, you really do not know what went into that project do you? Keep living in your make believe world where construction occurs on existing parking lots.

When you do read up on it, understand that, I realize that the plot of land is owned by DC. My point was that it was green, they changed the zoning to accommodate it and now it is concrete. Lots of examples, both private and public that fit this example. AU Nebraska Ave development. I understand it is private. It used to have a setback and now is built from the sidewalk to the developments behind it. Is it awful? No, it is actually attractive, but it has changed that open walk considerably. Now imagine the entire corridor like that.

It's strange because I live nearby, attended most of the public meetings about the shelter and the Giant down the block is my grocery store so I go by at least weekly.

The shelter is clearly on the part of the police stations parking lot to the west of the station.

I'm really not sure how else to respond to you - the plans are on-line all over the place and if we weren't social distancing I'd offer to meet you there to show you but somehow I have the feeling you'd deny things that are right in front of you.

And the AU Nebraska Ave development you must be really ignorant about because in that case that entire lot was covered by an asphalt parking lot. Now rather than being used to store cars (hows that for a green use of land in a space constrained city??) the lot now houses people in an entirely LEED certified complex and there is now a green buffer with several hundred trees on the lot that weren't there before.

So yeah those are both in fact great examples of what we should be doing in a warming world - replacing surface parking lots with housing.

Did you want to try again to find an example of green space converted to housing?

It’s not that simple. Don’t forget that DC decreed the homeless shelter location on the police parking lot without ever talking with MPD beforehand. That sent Mary Cheh and Bowser on a frantic scramble to build a large above-ground multistory parking garage for the police on green space owned by the DC government next to the community gardens. It was built cheaply, quick (for DC) and is really fugly. The garage sits directly across the street from McLean Gardens homes. DC promised to put green screening around the garage (not sure how exactly), but seems to have assigned that task to the same crack office that is in charge of tree canopy preservation at nearby Hearst Park. In others words, nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

Making money is fine. Making windfall profits because you have the mayor in your pocket and can force a huge regulatory change is not - particularly when the windfall to favored friends comes at the expense of green space, historic preservation, sunlight, pedestrian scale, quality of residential life and neighborhood character.

[Anonymous]

It safe to assume that Bowser is in the developers’ pocket because they put something in hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in DC, and I'm really liking it. It's not like NYC where it's hard to find space. I can go for a walk and maintain plenty of distance, but I can also have a porch happy hour where I can chat with all my neighbors while we are all on our own porches. I can be by myself yet not feel lonely.

+1

DC is livable. NYC is not.

I vote for less density. More green space, fewer condo buildings.

Please provide a single example in DC of green space that was converted to condos or any other type of housing?

One example: Ward 3 homeless shelter

Nope please try again. The Ward 3 homeless shelter was constructed on part of the police stations parking lot.

Wow, you really do not know what went into that project do you? Keep living in your make believe world where construction occurs on existing parking lots.

When you do read up on it, understand that, I realize that the plot of land is owned by DC. My point was that it was green, they changed the zoning to accommodate it and now it is concrete. Lots of examples, both private and public that fit this example. AU Nebraska Ave development. I understand it is private. It used to have a setback and now is built from the sidewalk to the developments behind it. Is it awful? No, it is actually attractive, but it has changed that open walk considerably. Now imagine the entire corridor like that.

It's strange because I live nearby, attended most of the public meetings about the shelter and the Giant down the block is my grocery store so I go by at least weekly.

The shelter is clearly on the part of the police stations parking lot to the west of the station.

I'm really not sure how else to respond to you - the plans are on-line all over the place and if we weren't social distancing I'd offer to meet you there to show you but somehow I have the feeling you'd deny things that are right in front of you.

And the AU Nebraska Ave development you must be really ignorant about because in that case that entire lot was covered by an asphalt parking lot. Now rather than being used to store cars (hows that for a green use of land in a space constrained city??) the lot now houses people in an entirely LEED certified complex and there is now a green buffer with several hundred trees on the lot that weren't there before.

So yeah those are both in fact great examples of what we should be doing in a warming world - replacing surface parking lots with housing.

Did you want to try again to find an example of green space converted to housing?

It’s not that simple. Don’t forget that DC decreed the homeless shelter location on the police parking lot without ever talking with MPD beforehand. That sent Mary Cheh and Bowser on a frantic scramble to build a large above-ground multistory parking garage for the police on green space owned by the DC government next to the community gardens. It was built cheaply, quick (for DC) and is really fugly. The garage sits directly across the street from McLean Gardens homes. DC promised to put green screening around the garage (not sure how exactly), but seems to have assigned that task to the same crack office that is in charge of tree canopy preservation at nearby Hearst Park. In others words, nothing.

it really is fugly. Bizarre that they would paw developers tax money to erect a total eyesore.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Pay ^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

Making money is fine. Making windfall profits because you have the mayor in your pocket and can force a huge regulatory change is not - particularly when the windfall to favored friends comes at the expense of green space, historic preservation, sunlight, pedestrian scale, quality of residential life and neighborhood character.

While the neighborhood character and quality of residential life arguments are subjective (though I'd love to hear the actual arguments) the others are not.

Again please provide specific examples where green space has been lost so developers can profit or where historic preservation has been trampled over or where the pedestrian scale (whatever the hell that even means) have been impacted by commercial development.

You can keep trotting out these absurd arguments but every now and then you need to provide some actual examples or even make an attempted argument to explain how or why you think all of these negative things have been happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

Making money is fine. Making windfall profits because you have the mayor in your pocket and can force a huge regulatory change is not - particularly when the windfall to favored friends comes at the expense of green space, historic preservation, sunlight, pedestrian scale, quality of residential life and neighborhood character.

While the neighborhood character and quality of residential life arguments are subjective (though I'd love to hear the actual arguments) the others are not.

Again please provide specific examples where green space has been lost so developers can profit or where historic preservation has been trampled over or where the pedestrian scale (whatever the hell that even means) have been impacted by commercial development.

You can keep trotting out these absurd arguments but every now and then you need to provide some actual examples or even make an attempted argument to explain how or why you think all of these negative things have been happening.

Not the PP but they pushed through variances for thd shelter garage. It sounds like Bowsers soothing plan has a lot of similar proposals to ramrod development . Isn't it just a little telling she has no similar proposal for her ward/neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

Making money is fine. Making windfall profits because you have the mayor in your pocket and can force a huge regulatory change is not - particularly when the windfall to favored friends comes at the expense of green space, historic preservation, sunlight, pedestrian scale, quality of residential life and neighborhood character.

While the neighborhood character and quality of residential life arguments are subjective (though I'd love to hear the actual arguments) the others are not.

Again please provide specific examples where green space has been lost so developers can profit or where historic preservation has been trampled over or where the pedestrian scale (whatever the hell that even means) have been impacted by commercial development.

You can keep trotting out these absurd arguments but every now and then you need to provide some actual examples or even make an attempted argument to explain how or why you think all of these negative things have been happening.

Just because you don't like the example because it does not fit your narrative, does not mean that it is not true. The Ward 3 shelter simply does not take up the space of the old garage. You can keep saying that it does, it does not change the facts. Or is a socially responsible way, go argue with the community gardeners that used that land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have tons of affordable housing. It's called PG County.

“Ward 9” is not the “high opportunity area” that the mayor’s developer cronies have in mind for windfall profits through upzoning and FLUM amendments. That’s why they set their sights on Ward 3 and got the mayor to outsource the comprehensive plan amendment process to themselves and their lawyers.

It's great when we get sprawl development in "Ward 9" - we get more traffic, more air pollution, more parking demand in our neighborhoods, less open space and the people living there spend much of their time stuck in traffic and not being productive.

But you have a chip on your shoulder because people building housing make money - no doubt the person who built your home did so for charity?

Making money is fine. Making windfall profits because you have the mayor in your pocket and can force a huge regulatory change is not - particularly when the windfall to favored friends comes at the expense of green space, historic preservation, sunlight, pedestrian scale, quality of residential life and neighborhood character.

While the neighborhood character and quality of residential life arguments are subjective (though I'd love to hear the actual arguments) the others are not.

Again please provide specific examples where green space has been lost so developers can profit or where historic preservation has been trampled over or where the pedestrian scale (whatever the hell that even means) have been impacted by commercial development.

You can keep trotting out these absurd arguments but every now and then you need to provide some actual examples or even make an attempted argument to explain how or why you think all of these negative things have been happening.

OP can not propose to allow 12 or 13 story buildings in an area of one and twostory buildings which are historically protected and call that “compatible”. Such discordance would basically gut an historic district. Perhaps that is their objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking that a once-in-a-century health event is an actual argument against smart growth that sets up affordability, sustainability, and accessibility for generations to come.

Or what's even worse and sadly more likely, imagine knowing how ridiculous that is yet going right ahead and using a disaster that will likely kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans to push your personal NIMBY agenda.

All of the arguments that I have heard advocating 'smart growth' or 'densification' seem to be arguments for building and cozying up to all of our DC builder friends. Nothing seems to acknowledge that we have a vibrant, walkable and livable city right now where you can walk outside and see the sky. I have loved my time living in NYC, but it always got to me that I was always in the shadows and I only saw the sun a couple of hours around noon.

I love NYC, not every city needs to be NYC.

If people really want a New York vibe and density, they are free to choose to live there. Vamoose bus tickets are pretty cheap. Washington is special for its open vistas, leafy green neighborhoods and the fact that you can see the sky. We don’t need to aspire to emulate New York City.

+1

If you're unhappy with the density in DC you are free to move elsewhere -- to New York City, to Tokyo, to Manila, to Mumbai. The rest of us like DC the way it is. Any politician in favor increasing density is not getting my vote.