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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:increasing density is an excellent way to spread things like coronavirus

Precisely my thoughts. Maybe our ancestors who fled polluted cities for green pastures knew a thing or two after all...

It’s definitely why there are more South Asians in the burbs. When they move here they are looking for space and yards to not be on top of each other like many are in several South Asian countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how the WaPo sees it. The era of Snark Growth May be over:

“Even before covid-19 hit, large urban centers like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago were losing population; more than 90 percent of all population growth since 2010 has taken place in the suburbs or exurbs. Millennials, as a new study from Heartland Forward demonstrates, based on an analysis of census numbers, increasingly head to cities and towns in the middle of the country and away from the supposed “magnets” of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
The current pestilence is likely to accelerate those shifts, which bear major ramifications for how Americans get to work. Transit ridership was doing poorly before the crisis, declining throughout the country, while telecommuting and driving alone continue to grow. With the specter of contagion, city-dwellers are told to avoid crowded subways, removing a critical element that makes ultradense cities work. In New York, subway traffic is down precipitously, as many commuters now work at home instead. Toronto is eliminating much of its downtown train service. The Washington Metro is also cutting back.
Just as progressives and environmentalists hoped the era of automotive dominance and suburban sprawl was coming to end, a globalized world that spreads pandemics quickly will push workers back into their cars and out to the hinterlands.“

That's not "the Washington Post," it's Joel Kotkin, and he's been anti-urban for decades. This is just his latest rationalization of it.

“Anti-urban.” Is that the dismissive term for anyone who doesn’t share the GGW/Snark growth/Bowser agenda?

You haven't read any Joel Kotkin, have you? Well, you probably have plenty of time now. He's anti-urban. You'll love him.

Kotkin seems pretty solid, described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer.” He’s is a professor in urban studies in Orange County, California. He writes about demographic, social, and economic trends in the U.S. and internationally. He is listed a regular contributor to The Daily Beast and Forbes.com and is on the editorial board of the Orange County Register. Evidently he does not drink the “smart growth “ Kool-Aid of upzoning America’s walkable neighborhoods into dense urban clusters. Understandably he has his detractors among big development interests, their handmaidens in the DC office of planning, and various urbanistas who blog from mom’s basement for Greater Greater Washington.

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

Yup. It's not me saying so. It's HIM saying so.

[Anonymous]

Per a DC council member (who did not want to be quoted), Bowser’s comprehensive plan amendments are dead this year. Once the crisis eases a bit, the council will have no bandwidth left to consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

[Anonymous]

I’ve lived mostly in big cities (Milan, Chicago, NYC, Philly). Everyone I know who has the means has headed to less density spots for safety, space and more. Those who don’t have space find what they need and work hard (sharing courtyard time or staying with parents). To each his own.

I finally settled in a suburban area and am glad we have two common areas and a tiny yard for playing. Good luck to all in finding what works for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

There are a couple different walkability conversations going on. High density (NY) and low-density (DC and newer exurbs) The low density one is that many of DCs hoods have little centers you can walk to (think of it like a string of pearls up the main streets with clusters of commerce) for everyday needs. Many new suburbs are being constructed like this as well. In either case, no one begrudges your daughter ubering if she feels unsafe or your aging parents driving to the restaurant. Many of us DO like living in a less dense DC where we can walk and see the sky.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Bowser’s developer friends can keep their “vibrant dense mixed-use urbanism” and shove it up their coronavirus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

"Comfortable and convenient to walk" does not mean "everyone must walk everywhere or get arrested" - as your college kids who pay to ride in Uber cars instead of making walkable trips on foot can attest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

"Comfortable and convenient to walk" does not mean "everyone must walk everywhere or get arrested"- as your college kids who pay to ride in Uber cars instead of making walkable trips on foot can attest.

I read all the progressive / urban planning blogs and social media-- that's exactly how the density-obsessed truly feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

"Comfortable and convenient to walk" does not mean "everyone must walk everywhere or get arrested"- as your college kids who pay to ride in Uber cars instead of making walkable trips on foot can attest.

I read all the progressive / urban planning blogs and social media-- that's exactly how the density-obsessed truly feel.

Yeah, no. Really. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol did you really just paste a quote from his personal website to boost him? As near as I can tell, he took that from a David Brooks column, not some kind of objective assessment. He's also explicitly called walkability an elitist luxury. He's a lover of suburban sprawl, very consciously.

No snark, is walkability, as the kids say, a meme? Or some PR talking point pushed by high-rise developers? My kids are in extremely walkable college towns, they're in great shape...yet they and their friends still uber everywhere. My daughter has interned two summers in Manhattan and while she tried to ride the subway, she admits she finds it disgusting and she's been harassed by creepy men and homeless while on it. My kids are not spoiled rich brats, either.

Also, doesn't the walkability obsession / ban cars utopia block out seniors and the disabled? My parents dine out a lot but they're not dining out if they have to walk 5 blocks from car to the restaurant door. They're nearly 80 years old.

There are a couple different walkability conversations going on. High density (NY) and low-density (DC and newer exurbs) The low density one is that many of DCs hoods have little centers you can walk to (think of it like a string of pearls up the main streets with clusters of commerce) for everyday needs. Many new suburbs are being constructed like this as well. In either case, no one begrudges your daughter ubering if she feels unsafe or your aging parents driving to the restaurant. Many of us DO like living in a less dense DC where we can walk and see the sky.

DC is low density? Ha! Give me a break. Then what is Nebraska? DC is one of the most densely populated cities in America. There are places in DC that are more densely populated than parts of New York City.

[Anonymous]

The mayor and council, while hiding behind locked doors and security guards, will get the rest of us killed when they release felons who are well aware that you don't have a gun.

Enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mayor and council, while hiding behind locked doors and security guards, will get the rest of us killed when they release felons who are well aware that you don't have a gun.

Enjoy.

You don’t need a gun to defend yourself against criminals. Use martial arts techniques. Or, you can use a can of bug spray, which is even more effective in disabling a burglar than a gun. Or throw canned food at them. There are lots of alternatives to guns that are far more effective in stopping people than a bullet.

[Anonymous]

So you have a can of food and they have a gun.

Guess who gets to eat that can of food?

[Anonymous]

You’d be surprised at the number of people in the District, nominally liberal Democrats living or working in DC who have permits to own a firearm. Thousands now have concealed carry permits. They’re fine with that because they respect the permit system as reasonable gun control while they have procured protection for themselves and their families. And they won’t hesitate to stand their ground if some thug or punk with a weapon threatens them.