Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another fair comparison

Funny enough though, because of all the complaining, SF-DOT is proposing potentially removing the center lane ones and putting in curbside, which would cut back on additional parking than the center lane.

They didn’t get the business closures they were seeking with center lane. Need to do curb lane instead. People were still able to use businesses. Gotta stop that. They want those businesses shuttered so developers can get that property and convert it to high density residential with retail underneath.

Those 15 minute cities aren’t gonna happen without inflicting pain and ruination.

Wow, full blow republican tinfoil hat talking point about 15 minute cities now?

And yet progressives themselves will tell you how that’s the urban design of the future.

The only language y’all are fluent in is gaslighting.

Yeah, god forbid we encourage development where its so convenient to live that you don't need to spend 20% of your take home pay on a car to get you from a to b and you could just use your two legs and feet. The absolute horror.

So, just to be clear - you endorse the 15 minute city model, then?

Even a deeply urbanist publication like CityLab things 15-minute cities are not realistic or feasible or even very wise:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/15-minute-cities-have-lofty-goals-questionable-economics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another fair comparison

Funny enough though, because of all the complaining, SF-DOT is proposing potentially removing the center lane ones and putting in curbside, which would cut back on additional parking than the center lane.

They didn’t get the business closures they were seeking with center lane. Need to do curb lane instead. People were still able to use businesses. Gotta stop that. They want those businesses shuttered so developers can get that property and convert it to high density residential with retail underneath.

Those 15 minute cities aren’t gonna happen without inflicting pain and ruination.

Wow, full blow republican tinfoil hat talking point about 15 minute cities now?

And yet progressives themselves will tell you how that’s the urban design of the future.

The only language y’all are fluent in is gaslighting.

Yeah, god forbid we encourage development where its so convenient to live that you don't need to spend 20% of your take home pay on a car to get you from a to b and you could just use your two legs and feet. The absolute horror.

So, just to be clear - you endorse the 15 minute city model, then?

Even a deeply urbanist publication like CityLab things 15-minute cities are not realistic or feasible or even very wise:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/15-minute-cities-have-lofty-goals-questionable-economics

the article you link to doesn't say any of those things

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another fair comparison

Funny enough though, because of all the complaining, SF-DOT is proposing potentially removing the center lane ones and putting in curbside, which would cut back on additional parking than the center lane.

They didn’t get the business closures they were seeking with center lane. Need to do curb lane instead. People were still able to use businesses. Gotta stop that. They want those businesses shuttered so developers can get that property and convert it to high density residential with retail underneath.

Those 15 minute cities aren’t gonna happen without inflicting pain and ruination.

Wow, full blow republican tinfoil hat talking point about 15 minute cities now?

And yet progressives themselves will tell you how that’s the urban design of the future.

The only language y’all are fluent in is gaslighting.

Yeah, god forbid we encourage development where its so convenient to live that you don't need to spend 20% of your take home pay on a car to get you from a to b and you could just use your two legs and feet. The absolute horror.

Which highly dense cities anywhere in the world have cheap housing?

plenty, if you're willing to live in places like bangladesh or mogadishu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another fair comparison

Funny enough though, because of all the complaining, SF-DOT is proposing potentially removing the center lane ones and putting in curbside, which would cut back on additional parking than the center lane.

They didn’t get the business closures they were seeking with center lane. Need to do curb lane instead. People were still able to use businesses. Gotta stop that. They want those businesses shuttered so developers can get that property and convert it to high density residential with retail underneath.

Those 15 minute cities aren’t gonna happen without inflicting pain and ruination.

Wow, full blow republican tinfoil hat talking point about 15 minute cities now?

And yet progressives themselves will tell you how that’s the urban design of the future.

The only language y’all are fluent in is gaslighting.

Yeah, god forbid we encourage development where its so convenient to live that you don't need to spend 20% of your take home pay on a car to get you from a to b and you could just use your two legs and feet. The absolute horror.

There is plenty of affordable housing in DC. You’re just afraid to live in those parts of town.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another fair comparison

Funny enough though, because of all the complaining, SF-DOT is proposing potentially removing the center lane ones and putting in curbside, which would cut back on additional parking than the center lane.

They didn’t get the business closures they were seeking with center lane. Need to do curb lane instead. People were still able to use businesses. Gotta stop that. They want those businesses shuttered so developers can get that property and convert it to high density residential with retail underneath.

Those 15 minute cities aren’t gonna happen without inflicting pain and ruination.

Wow, full blow republican tinfoil hat talking point about 15 minute cities now?

And yet progressives themselves will tell you how that’s the urban design of the future.

The only language y’all are fluent in is gaslighting.

Yeah, god forbid we encourage development where its so convenient to live that you don't need to spend 20% of your take home pay on a car to get you from a to b and you could just use your two legs and feet. The absolute horror.

So, just to be clear - you endorse the 15 minute city model, then?

Even a deeply urbanist publication like CityLab things 15-minute cities are not realistic or feasible or even very wise:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/15-minute-cities-have-lofty-goals-questionable-economics

the article you link to doesn't say any of those things

"The economics of the 15-minute city don’t really work." It certainly does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which highly dense cities anywhere in the world have cheap housing?

Tokyo
Montreal
Mexico City
Santiago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which highly dense cities anywhere in the world have cheap housing?

Tokyo
Montreal
Mexico City
Santiago

Tokyo? Lol

Rio and Lagos have some pockets of cheap housing though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which highly dense cities anywhere in the world have cheap housing?

Tokyo
Montreal
Mexico City
Santiago

Tokyo? Lol

Rio and Lagos have some pockets of cheap housing though.

And their favélas and ghettos are Third World cesspools. Is that the model that D.C. aspires to?

[Anonymous]

The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

Is there? 34,000 units have been added in the last 10 years and there are wide swaths of the city and surrounding area with affordable housing. They're just in places you don't want to live.

Every "cool" neighborhood in the world was once just like those places. What do you think Williamsburg was like in the 70s and 80s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

Is there? 34,000 units have been added in the last 10 years and there are wide swaths of the city and surrounding area with affordable housing. They're just in places you don't want to live.

Every "cool" neighborhood in the world was once just like those places. What do you think Williamsburg was like in the 70s and 80s?

Yes, there is. On the one hand, there is a ton of data. And then, on the one hand, there is you and your vibes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

Is there? 34,000 units have been added in the last 10 years and there are wide swaths of the city and surrounding area with affordable housing. They're just in places you don't want to live.

Every "cool" neighborhood in the world was once just like those places. What do you think Williamsburg was like in the 70s and 80s?

Yes, there is. On the one hand, there is a ton of data. And then, on the one hand, there is you and your vibes.

Vibes is a you thing. There is available and attainable housing around - it's just in places you are afraid of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

Is there? 34,000 units have been added in the last 10 years and there are wide swaths of the city and surrounding area with affordable housing. They're just in places you don't want to live.

Every "cool" neighborhood in the world was once just like those places. What do you think Williamsburg was like in the 70s and 80s?

Yes, there is. On the one hand, there is a ton of data. And then, on the one hand, there is you and your vibes.

Vibes is a you thing. There is available and attainable housing around - it's just in places you are afraid of.

The assumption you seem to be making, here, is that everyone having trouble with housing costs is a young and bougie potential gentrifier. A weird assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that all cities have pockets of cheap housing and pockets of expensive housing. Traditionally, immigrants and childless young adults, who naturally have a higher risk tolerance, moved into the cheaper areas and began the process of renewal or gentrification.

For instance, U Street/Shaw was a dump in the 80's and 90's until the Ethiopian/Eritrean community and Gen X young adults started moving there because it was cheaper. H street hipsters. Logan Circle, Bloomington, Eckington, etc etc was a similar process.

The problem is that this cohort of childless young adults is the most risk averse in history.

The problem is that some people, who are doing fine on housing themselves, refuse to acknowledge that there is an actual housing shortage, and instead prefer to blame it on foolish things like "young people these days, amirite?"

Is there? 34,000 units have been added in the last 10 years and there are wide swaths of the city and surrounding area with affordable housing. They're just in places you don't want to live.

Every "cool" neighborhood in the world was once just like those places. What do you think Williamsburg was like in the 70s and 80s?

Yes, there is. On the one hand, there is a ton of data. And then, on the one hand, there is you and your vibes.

Vibes is a you thing. There is available and attainable housing around - it's just in places you are afraid of.

The assumption you seem to be making, here, is that everyone having trouble with housing costs is a young and bougie potential gentrifier. A weird assumption.

Nope. Silver Spring versus Bethesda is the same dynamic.

But just you know, everyone that moves anywhere is a gentrifier. When you strip away the connotation and stick with with the denotation, gentrification is just the process of people moving to a new neighborhood.