Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man how do you support this? It sounds like a great move for the city.

This is a developer play which is why Bowser is prostituting herself again to do their bidding. For fatter margins, raising not eliminating the height restriction would forever alter one of the most distinctive and attractive feature about Washington DC.

Once upon a time, a developer built the house you live in currently. Should we tear it down and restore the woods? Why do you get to dictate where and how people will live 100 years from now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.

How about just making a law saying 15%of new development needs to be affordable housing, and coincide with current height requirement? Not sure how raising a bit makes a bit of difference

Because 15% of 7 stories is more than zero% of 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.

How about just making a law saying 15%of new development needs to be affordable housing, and coincide with current height requirement? Not sure how raising a bit makes a bit of difference

Because 15% of 7 stories is more than zero% of 5.

Roght, but if you are "passing" all these laws, pass 15% of 5. Developers still make $$$.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, ^ right.

Basically, I'm saying that if DC has this magic wand to tell developers what to do. then tell them what to do. We don't have to change the ONLY unique features of our city for them. There's plenty of land yet to be developed, and the Mayor and Council can easily pass laws to incentivize mixed income housing within current height requirements. What exactly is magical about seven stories??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

Why is this desirable? Can our infrastructure handle more people? Can our schools? What is the value in more people? Perhaps if you want more people you need to go to Nyc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

Why is this desirable? Can our infrastructure handle more people? Can our schools? What is the value in more people? Perhaps if you want more people you need to go to Nyc.

That was in the day when children shared bedrooms and people rented out spare rooms in their houses. Now every millennial wants an upscale flat on U Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, ^ right.

Basically, I'm saying that if DC has this magic wand to tell developers what to do. then tell them what to do. We don't have to change the ONLY unique features of our city for them. There's plenty of land yet to be developed, and the Mayor and Council can easily pass laws to incentivize mixed income housing within current height requirements. What exactly is magical about seven stories??

You must be new here. Bowser doesn’t tell developers what to do. They tell her what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

DC had the current height limit yet housed 800,000 people.

No Rosslyn-style towers necessary. Imagine that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, ^ right.

Basically, I'm saying that if DC has this magic wand to tell developers what to do. then tell them what to do. We don't have to change the ONLY unique features of our city for them. There's plenty of land yet to be developed, and the Mayor and Council can easily pass laws to incentivize mixed income housing within current height requirements. What exactly is magical about seven stories??

They have the right to tell them what to do when applying for a PUD or other project that goes before the zoning commission, They don't have the right to force affordable units on a matter of right projects.

Where is all this "plenty of land yet to be developed?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

Why is this desirable? Can our infrastructure handle more people? Can our schools? What is the value in more people? Perhaps if you want more people you need to go to Nyc.

Why do you wish a stagnant economy on the District of Columbia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

My point is that contra the PP before me, refusing to add density and DC and inner suburbs won't make people disappear, but will lead (directly or indirectly) to new sprawl, despite the claim that mixed use condo (!) towers will not save corn fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, ^ right.

Basically, I'm saying that if DC has this magic wand to tell developers what to do. then tell them what to do. We don't have to change the ONLY unique features of our city for them. There's plenty of land yet to be developed, and the Mayor and Council can easily pass laws to incentivize mixed income housing within current height requirements. What exactly is magical about seven stories??

A. They don't have a magic wand. They have to act within the law and US constitution, which limits uncompensated taking of private property. Many forms of requirements on property that it is currently legal to build on would be takings.

B. Some govt asks WOULD make development unprofitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

Why is this desirable? Can our infrastructure handle more people? Can our schools? What is the value in more people? Perhaps if you want more people you need to go to Nyc.

It is desirable because A. More people get to live where they want (I mean why is letting companies supply the goods people want desirable?) B. It means fewer people live in sprawl, more live closer to work, there is less auto travel (regionally) and its better for the planet C. The district gets tax revenues, which can pay for the infra and also contribute to paying for social services (you can also get social benefits in kind, for example the committed affordable housing discussed above).

Yes, most infra in an urban area is a fixed cost, only dependent on population to a limited extent. For example the big project to fix the combined sewer outflows costs what it costs regardless of population.

Schoolse - I thought people said the new condos were only for the childless? Now people are admitting it DOES make room for more families, directly or indirectly? Well yes, DC should look at the cost of school capacity and the tax revenues from development - I think they will find new development still pays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.

In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.

Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?

You realize there is both population growth, more desirability to live in cities and particularly DC, right? DC has grown by 100,000 in the last 10 or so years. At its peak, DC had over 800,000 residents. There is no reason not to at least try to get to that level.

DC had the current height limit yet housed 800,000 people.

No Rosslyn-style towers necessary. Imagine that

At a time when due to wartime conditions, you couldn't build new housing in the suburbs (and cars were expensive relative to incomes, etc). So people lived crowded in DC - during the war people even "hotsheeted" - shift workers took turns using beds.

Today if you limit DC's pops you won't get people doing that. You will mostly get more sprawl. Though as you increase rents in DC and in the suburbs you MIGHT get more homelessness. Certainly you get immigrant families doubling and tripling up in suburban low rise apt complexes. I don't think that is a good thing. "All are welcome, but not to decent living conditions"