Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

You can repeat that as much as you want, but they are not the same thing.

Gentrification in all of these neighborhoods was led by condo developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

You can repeat that as much as you want, but they are not the same thing.

Gentrification in all of these neighborhoods was led by condo developers.

No, in all three of them it was led by rowhouse rehabbers. The redevelopment of the main drags (mostly with rentals not condos) followed later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

You can repeat that as much as you want, but they are not the same thing.

Gentrification in all of these neighborhoods was led by condo developers.

No, in all three of them it was led by rowhouse rehabbers. The redevelopment of the main drags (mostly with rentals not condos) followed later.

Developers aren’t going to make any money if they wait for gentrification before deciding to build. Most businesspeople prefer to buy low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

That doesn't sound like a significant increase in density to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

That doesn't sound like a significant increase in density to me.

It’s in a historic district which will limit a lot greater density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

Then maybe you should be supporting more density on the Ward 3 corridors - Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues, to make up the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

That doesn't sound like a significant increase in density to me.

It’s in a historic district which will limit a lot greater density.

Only if the people living in the historic district want it to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

Then maybe you should be supporting more density on the Ward 3 corridors - Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues, to make up the difference.

The office of planning os now pushing what they gently call “gentle density” which would essentially eliminate single-family residential zoning within half a mile of a metro stop or a quarter-mile of any bus line. This means that several blocks in each direction from a major street or even a collector street could be changed for multi-story multifamily development projects. This could have a wry substantial impact on neighborhoods like the Palisades, Chevy Chase DC, AU Park, Cleveland Park, Glover Park, etc.

[Anonymous]

Very substantial impact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

Then maybe you should be supporting more density on the Ward 3 corridors - Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues, to make up the difference.

The office of planning os now pushing what they gently call “gentle density” which would essentially eliminate single-family residential zoning within half a mile of a metro stop or a quarter-mile of any bus line. This means that several blocks in each direction from a major street or even a collector street could be changed for multi-story multifamily development projects. This could have a wry substantial impact on neighborhoods like the Palisades, Chevy Chase DC, AU Park, Cleveland Park, Glover Park, etc.

What is even the point of that? It's not going to make any difference in housing prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.

The population is only increasing, toots. Where do you recommend people live?

Remember that gentrification is happening in all quadrants of the city, even in Upper NW. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city, many of which are in older apartment buildings. These buildings, often modest and not fancy, are being targeted by developers to be renovated for condos or upscale flats, or sometimes torn down altogether. A recent example is a building on Connecticut Avenue, where the new owner has emptied it of 12 rent controlled units, to be replaced by 13 market rate apartments or condos and 1 IZ unit. People of more limited means currently live in such buildings, enjoying access to transit, good public schools, shopping and recreation. Yet as their buildings are gentrified, they are losing their homes and access to these services and amenities. Council member Anita Bonds recently called rent controlled housing the most effective current form of affordable housing, but OP not only is not conserving rent controlled housing, it seems to be ignoring it. Let's not lose an important source of existing affordable housing in Ward 3 through targeted gentrification.

Then maybe you should be supporting more density on the Ward 3 corridors - Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues, to make up the difference.

The office of planning os now pushing what they gently call “gentle density” which would essentially eliminate single-family residential zoning within half a mile of a metro stop or a quarter-mile of any bus line. This means that several blocks in each direction from a major street or even a collector street could be changed for multi-story multifamily development projects. This could have a wry substantial impact on neighborhoods like the Palisades, Chevy Chase DC, AU Park, Cleveland Park, Glover Park, etc.

What is even the point of that? It's not going to make any difference in housing prices.

Ah, but it will make a material difference in big developers profits. They are Bowser’s johns, er, cronies.

[Anonymous]

It’s not a news source. It’s a pretty well-documented PR outlet for developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a news source. It’s a pretty well-documented PR outlet for developers.

For and funded by developers. GGW also identifies and supports candidates for DC Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, who commit to take pro-development positions.