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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Seriously. I hate whenever people talk about it like it’s a good thing. It’s basically charging people to overpay for a “luxury” condo that’s made of cardboard, stick 200 people in one building like prison ants, all while making sure people don’t buy cars for the “environment” with artificial green space that’s mainly inhabited by nearby food trucks and homeless people.

Yeah f that.

If you don't want to live there, you don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to live there.

You don’t understand. We DO live here. We value being able to see the sky. We like the Height Act and the fact that it gives our nation’s capital a skyline that is unique among major cities. We don’t feel deprived because we don’t have the generic look and feel or so many other cities. We like our low key, walkable neighborhoods. We appreciate our green space and the fact that we can walk while avoiding crowds, now more than ever.

So, yes, take your dense mixed-use elixir and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe some sucker somewhere else is still buying it.

No, you don't live in those buildings. What you're saying is: We don't want buildings like that near us, so other people, who actually want to live in buildings like that, shouldn't get to live in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Seriously. I hate whenever people talk about it like it’s a good thing. It’s basically charging people to overpay for a “luxury” condo that’s made of cardboard, stick 200 people in one building like prison ants, all while making sure people don’t buy cars for the “environment” with artificial green space that’s mainly inhabited by nearby food trucks and homeless people.

Yeah f that.

If you don't want to live there, you don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to live there.

You don’t understand. We DO live here. We value being able to see the sky. We like the Height Act and the fact that it gives our nation’s capital a skyline that is unique among major cities. We don’t feel deprived because we don’t have the generic look and feel or so many other cities. We like our low key, walkable neighborhoods. We appreciate our green space and the fact that we can walk while avoiding crowds, now more than ever.

So, yes, take your dense mixed-use elixir and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe some sucker somewhere else is still buying it.

No, you don't live in those buildings. What you're saying is: We don't want buildings like that near us, so other people, who actually want to live in buildings like that, shouldn't get to live in them.

What people are saying is that DC values it’s neighborhoods for lots of reasons, including those made quite apparent during this time of “home confinement.” Why should they be transformed into some generic imitation of Clarendon, Ballston, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Seriously. I hate whenever people talk about it like it’s a good thing. It’s basically charging people to overpay for a “luxury” condo that’s made of cardboard, stick 200 people in one building like prison ants, all while making sure people don’t buy cars for the “environment” with artificial green space that’s mainly inhabited by nearby food trucks and homeless people.

Yeah f that.

If you don't want to live there, you don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to live there.

You don’t understand. We DO live here. We value being able to see the sky. We like the Height Act and the fact that it gives our nation’s capital a skyline that is unique among major cities. We don’t feel deprived because we don’t have the generic look and feel or so many other cities. We like our low key, walkable neighborhoods. We appreciate our green space and the fact that we can walk while avoiding crowds, now more than ever.

So, yes, take your dense mixed-use elixir and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe some sucker somewhere else is still buying it.

No, you don't live in those buildings. What you're saying is: We don't want buildings like that near us, so other people, who actually want to live in buildings like that, shouldn't get to live in them.

What people are saying is that DC values it’s neighborhoods for lots of reasons, including those made quite apparent during this time of “home confinement.” Why should they be transformed into some generic imitation of Clarendon, Ballston, etc.?

No, what people are saying is that they like their neighborhoods the way they are and don't want anything to change. Which is fine, as a personal preference, but not really useful for housing or land use or transportation policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Seriously. I hate whenever people talk about it like it’s a good thing. It’s basically charging people to overpay for a “luxury” condo that’s made of cardboard, stick 200 people in one building like prison ants, all while making sure people don’t buy cars for the “environment” with artificial green space that’s mainly inhabited by nearby food trucks and homeless people.

Yeah f that.

If you don't want to live there, you don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to live there.

You don’t understand. We DO live here. We value being able to see the sky. We like the Height Act and the fact that it gives our nation’s capital a skyline that is unique among major cities. We don’t feel deprived because we don’t have the generic look and feel or so many other cities. We like our low key, walkable neighborhoods. We appreciate our green space and the fact that we can walk while avoiding crowds, now more than ever.

So, yes, take your dense mixed-use elixir and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe some sucker somewhere else is still buying it.

No, you don't live in those buildings. What you're saying is: We don't want buildings like that near us, so other people, who actually want to live in buildings like that, shouldn't get to live in them.

What people are saying is that DC values it’s neighborhoods for lots of reasons, including those made quite apparent during this time of “home confinement.” Why should they be transformed into some generic imitation of Clarendon, Ballston, etc.?

No, what people are saying is that they like their neighborhoods the way they are and don't want anything to change. Which is fine, as a personal preference, but not really useful for housing or land use or transportation policy.

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

In NW DC, look at the BF Sauk Park Van Ness Or The Woodley projects, both of which were designed sensitively to add density while fitting within their surrounding context, with exquisite design detail. Very successful.

The Office of Planning proposing to allow 12 and 13 story buildings in a neighborhood historic district of one and two story buildings: incredibly inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

If the planning process and aesthetics of the "new Ward 3" shelter, now built are indicative of "proposed projects" to be pushed through by the same Mayor and Council, then these proposed projects are toast. They had a chance to do something a little more slowly, and thoughtfully and properly, and took short-cuts. Bye--eee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

If the planning process and aesthetics of the "new Ward 3" shelter, now built are indicative of "proposed projects" to be pushed through by the same Mayor and Council, then these proposed projects are toast. They had a chance to do something a little more slowly, and thoughtfully and properly, and took short-cuts. Bye--eee!

Even more beautiful is the above ground concrete parking garage built right across the street from residences. DC built the parking garage as quickly and cheaply as possible. This was after Cheh and Bowser forgot to tell the police department that the homeless tower would be built on their parking lot, an oversight that did not amuse the police.

[Anonymous]

This densification argument in DC has always baffled me. We really do live in a wonderful country and with globalization a pretty spectacular world. If you really wanted to live in a denser city you could with a little planning and a little effort live and work anywhere. You could move from DC to NYC, Hong Kong, Rome, London, Singapore (For really excellent urban planning), or Dubai. What is the seemingly burning need to heighten and densify DC.

I have had very few visitors stay with us in DC that have not noted how low DC is compared to whatever city they are from and they like that unique bit. Even some friends from more suburban places that are impressed with DC's skyscrapers

Again, if you want taller and denser, there are readily available options out there for you.

[Anonymous]

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson recently tweeted that the District id Columbia is the densest state or territory in the I
United States. But developers and their “smart growth” cheerleaders say that’s not nearly enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

In NW DC, look at the BF Sauk Park Van Ness Or The Woodley projects, both of which were designed sensitively to add density while fitting within their surrounding context, with exquisite design detail. Very successful.

The Office of Planning proposing to allow 12 and 13 story buildings in a neighborhood historic district of one and two story buildings: incredibly inappropriate.

Both of them were strenuously opposed by people who say they support appropriate, balanced, thoughtful growth.

[Anonymous]

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

False premise. The rural areas are infected too. The good news, in the high density areas, there are resources and many health care providers and many food shopping options to bare the crush. If you lived in a county with one country hospital and a few grocery stores, things would be pretty bleak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.

Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."

In NW DC, look at the BF Sauk Park Van Ness Or The Woodley projects, both of which were designed sensitively to add density while fitting within their surrounding context, with exquisite design detail. Very successful.

The Office of Planning proposing to allow 12 and 13 story buildings in a neighborhood historic district of one and two story buildings: incredibly inappropriate.

Both of them were strenuously opposed by people who say they support appropriate, balanced, thoughtful growth.

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

[Anonymous]

This is a timely article

https://medium.com/@Ward4STP/cities-are-on-the-frontlines-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-not-the-cause-of-it-62e14e94b30e

[Anonymous]

And this