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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not to mention that BF Saul has the reputation for doing quality projects and engaging more with the community. On the other end is a corporate developer/property manager like Bozzuto which hires the cheapest architects and designers and builds projects that look more like stick-built airport hotels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Factually incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, the mayor's aggressive move to rewrite the city’s comp plan in a very developer-friendly way is forgone by the wayside, with the new perspective from this crisis.

[Anonymous]

Gone by the wayside

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm have you seen NYC? Yeah that kinda kills your argument.

Besides, rural areas are typically pretty well off. You act as if they’re all poor trailer park hillbillies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm have you seen NYC? Yeah that kinda kills your argument.

Besides, rural areas are typically pretty well off. You act as if they’re all poor trailer park hillbillies.

“Typically pretty well off”? Bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really looking forwarding to revisiting this thread in a month when Covid19 is ripping through and devastating rural communities in this country where the average person is in poorer health and the health care system is far less robust and flexible than it is in most urban areas.

Or coming back in 2 weeks when Covid19 is spreading like wildfire in sprawling and suburban LA.

Or posting all the articles about the wealthy who have fled cities in the Northeast to avoid this debacle but then find themselves in wealthy enclaves in FL that suddenly are overwhelmed but then they are stuck when they try to get back to the urban area they fled that has superior health care services and doctors.

This nightmare is going to force our society to revisit a lot of the ways we do and fund things in this country but nothing that has been posted on here from a couple of disgruntled & insecure NIMBYS from wealthy Ward 3 spouting non-sense while hiding in their expensive homes all day offers even a narrative argument for why this virus is going to be the end of urbanism globally or locally.

This is actually going to happen more likely because dumbass idiots from NYC or DC will leave the cities and drive to a small rural town to ride it out, then spread the virus out there and get rurals infected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm have you seen NYC? Yeah that kinda kills your argument.

Besides, rural areas are typically pretty well off. You act as if they’re all poor trailer park hillbillies.

“Typically pretty well off”? Bullshit.

Umm yeah just because rural= poor.

But don’t let your elitism hit you in the door because you paid $1.5 for an Arlington shitshack, Karen.

[Anonymous]

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

about as smart as h1b visas, allowing companies to take jobs from US citizens and give to temporary guest workers.

our culture is doomed.

[Anonymous]

Rural areas would be screwed if they get hit harder by the virus most don't have the health infrastructure to deal with a critical mass of sick people. Look at what happened in all the ski towns and other rich people vacation home towns in Montana

[Anonymous]

I don't think people are talking about the healthcare, they are talking about not physically living on top of each other and how that relates to prevention or slowing the spread of these viruses. It is a lot easier to not touch things others have touched for example, if you enter your own door of house, duplex, condo, than an elevator. It is safer right now to take walks, and not bump shoulders. Many people love hustle bustle and love apartments (I do), but IMO after this they will have to look at a lot more technology like robot cleaners, self cleaning buttons, self cleaning toilets in high density areas. When the developers come forward with plans that are livable AND safe and aesthetically pleasing, I'm sure people will consider them. In DC, they also shouldn't violate the height- but that's DC, not typical of every zone in the country.

[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!

If neighbors had engaged around design rather than oppose and fight, perhaps there could have been a different result. They didn't learn from their protracted Cathedral Commons opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have a severe housing shortage. And a housing affordability crisis. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rural areas would be screwed if they get hit harder by the virus most don't have the health infrastructure to deal with a critical mass of sick people. Look at what happened in all the ski towns and other rich people vacation home towns in Montana

Yep.