Any momentum to preserve open space?

[Anonymous]

Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That is part of the point, increase density where infrastructure already exists to preserve greenspace in the rural areas.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That’s more like Florida than DC. DC has more parks and green space than most other cities in the USA.

Those DC parks and green spaces and open spaces all have targets on them. Especially if they are anywhere near a metro stop

Could you please list the parks in DC that have been de-parked and had towers of steel, concrete, and glass built on them?

They can't because in DC proper, it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I probably pay closer attention than you do.

If you're interested in greening cities - specifically streetscapes - look at the roads. The roads need more street trees and stormwater features, and less pavement for cars and parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The density gang would like to see open space turned into luxury apartments.

Why are you this confused?

Density advocates want more density in urban areas so that housing doesn’t eat up every last green space that's left. Anti-sprawl. You literally have things completely backwards!

Density advocates love to talk about “induced demand” in the context of building roads. But they never mention the induced demand caused by building more housing.

We have an increasingly growing population. They need to live somewhere, so yes, having more dense housing options will necessarily mean more people living in them. The point is, better than then continuing to eat up arable land for single family homes in car-dependent areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That’s more like Florida than DC. DC has more parks and green space than most other cities in the USA.

Those DC parks and green spaces and open spaces all have targets on them. Especially if they are anywhere near a metro stop

Could you please list the parks in DC that have been de-parked and had towers of steel, concrete, and glass built on them?

They can't because in DC proper, it doesn't exist.

My guess is they were referring to McMillan.

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/30/dc-mcmillan-site-sold/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

The existing parks and green spaces are not being developed unless the city or national park service sells them and they are zoned, which they aren't currently - so almost impossibly unlikely.

In other words, you entire post is a total red herring because your scenario hasn't and will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That’s more like Florida than DC. DC has more parks and green space than most other cities in the USA.

Those DC parks and green spaces and open spaces all have targets on them. Especially if they are anywhere near a metro stop

Could you please list the parks in DC that have been de-parked and had towers of steel, concrete, and glass built on them?

They can't because in DC proper, it doesn't exist.

My guess is they were referring to McMillan.

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/30/dc-mcmillan-site-sold/

McMillan wasn't a park and the part that is being developed was never a park, no matter how much the NIMBYs want to claim otherwise. The part where people played and camped out was across the street where the reservoir is. The filtration area was always an industrial area, unless you want to go back to the late 1800's, before the plant was developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That’s more like Florida than DC. DC has more parks and green space than most other cities in the USA.

Those DC parks and green spaces and open spaces all have targets on them. Especially if they are anywhere near a metro stop

Could you please list the parks in DC that have been de-parked and had towers of steel, concrete, and glass built on them?

They can't because in DC proper, it doesn't exist.

My guess is they were referring to McMillan.

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/30/dc-mcmillan-site-sold/

McMillan wasn't a park and the part that is being developed was never a park, no matter how much the NIMBYs want to claim otherwise. The part where people played and camped out was across the street where the reservoir is. The filtration area was always an industrial area, unless you want to go back to the late 1800's, before the plant was developed.

PP you're responding to, and I agree! But the NIMBYs don't agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Don’t want parks. Just want open green fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

Tsk, tsk. Your actions have spoken much more loudly than your words have.