Bowser proposes to add over 1,500 new affordable housing units to "Rock Creek West"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you mean by "in the middle of" Falls Church they are mostly on Washington and on Broad - not at all far from detached SFHs (and right across the street from THs)

In Rosslyn - Ballston in North Arlington the County has created a buffer of THs between the denser apts and detached SFHs. No such buffer along Columbia Pike, but the height there is more limited.

Could you give an example from DC of what you mean?

Well in DC we have and continue to have apartment buildings go in as new development zones, including along Wisconsin Ave., obviously the ballpark etc. I'm confused where the Mayor would put 1,500 more units (as a fraction of other units? Or self contained?) in rock creek park west. Once you get off the main roads its all single family and duplex.

The ball park? You kidding me? An old industrial area, parking lots, old warehouses, etc, etc. Not a neighborhood of SFHs. So the equivalents in NoVa would include National Gateway in Arlington, Potomac Yard in Alexandria, Tysons in Fairfax.

Wisconsin is a major avenue that has long had apartments. Yes there are some SFHs close to it I guess. Unlike say in Clarendon in Arlington, where the County put THs in as a buffer. Would you like a couple of blocks away from Wisconsin zoned for THs and low rise apts as a buffer?

I think you and I are agreeing. I wouldn't. It makes sense to me to put apartment blocks, well planned, with the new walkable neighborhood model, in areas like the ballpark. I'm assuming those are the same kinds of areas getting this development in MD and VA. Plopping dense apartment units in historic districts or in the middle of single family homes and duplexes DOESNT make sense to me, in DC or the suburbs unless they are in some massive need or re-imagining/revitalization. As far as I know, most in this area are doing fine.

Again there are places in NoVa with new apts close to SFHs.

Many of the most attractive neighborhoods (including many in DC) have a mix of apts and SFHs.

There is a need for more housing. Putting more of it in W3 would both meet demand, and also help integrate W3. Why should it all be in other wards?

There are already 5000 new housing units under construction or neary so in Ward 3. At least 500 have to be affordable. And that was before the mayor's "plan." There are more in the proposal stage. And don't forget the thousands of rent controlled units in the ward, which we have to preserve!

There is also a massive amount of affordable housing just over the border in PG county.

I'm confused - Ward 3 is just over the border from PG County? How did I miss that in my 30 years of living in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

[Anonymous]

I want to live in Georgetown? Why can’t they build modern apartment buildings with affordable rent for people like me now?! F the zoning and historic regulations. Equity and justice for the people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

“Trueblood” would be a more fitting name for a white nationalist that “Miller.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to live in Georgetown? Why can’t they build modern apartment buildings with affordable rent for people like me now?! F the zoning and historic regulations. Equity and justice for the people!

I want to live by the national mall. Lafayette park would be good room for my apartment building and we could do a courtyard or something with green space. I could walk to museums! Or what about on The mall? All that space!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

DC is already one of the most densely populated places in America. We have neighborhoods that are more crowded than parts of New York City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

DC is already one of the most densely populated places in America. We have neighborhoods that are more crowded than parts of New York City.

Parts of NYC are pretty low density. Jamaica Estates (where POTUS grew up) parts of Staten Island, etc.

So that's not a really meaningful statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

DC is already one of the most densely populated places in America. We have neighborhoods that are more crowded than parts of New York City.

Parts of NYC are pretty low density. Jamaica Estates (where POTUS grew up) parts of Staten Island, etc.

So that's not a really meaningful statement.

Sure, it is. There are places in DC with 70,000 people per square mile. That's more than most of Queens, the Bronx, parts of Brooklyn, even parts of Manhattan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser’s head of the office of planning, Andrew Trueblood, write his graduate thesis on eliminating the DC height limitation in order to construct tall buildings throughout the city. Now he’s got the ability to translate his callow notions into public policy with lasting impacts. Trueblood is the Stephen Miller of city planning.

Nice fear mongering.

And not what he said:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/13122780/mit-thesis-on-height-limits-backs-strategic-boosting

At all.

What he actually proposed is pretty modest and would also reduce the pressure for developments in neighborhoods further from downtown by allowing more development downtown, which in case you were not aware is pretty close to being completely built out at this point.

In any case Congress still controls DC's height limit after the DC Council bizarrely decided against asking for that decision to be returned to DC residents though in all of DC outside of Pennsylvania Avenue the zoning does not even allow any buildings as tall as the Federal Height limit allows.

Which is too bad because dense neighborhoods happen to have a number of advantages, especially environmental ones, but obviously some DC residents just want to be able to drive and park unimpeded.

DC is already one of the most densely populated places in America. We have neighborhoods that are more crowded than parts of New York City.

Parts of NYC are pretty low density. Jamaica Estates (where POTUS grew up) parts of Staten Island, etc.

So that's not a really meaningful statement.

Sure, it is. There are places in DC with 70,000 people per square mile. That's more than most of Queens, the Bronx, parts of Brooklyn, even parts of Manhattan.

The average population density of DC is 11,000 per sq mile. and because of retrocession DC has a a particularly small central city compared to places like Chicago, Philly, etc. Despite that DC has about the same density as Chicago and Philly. NYC of course has about 2 and a half times the density, despite its many low density areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to live in Georgetown? Why can’t they build modern apartment buildings with affordable rent for people like me now?! F the zoning and historic regulations. Equity and justice for the people!

I want to live by the national mall. Lafayette park would be good room for my apartment building and we could do a courtyard or something with green space. I could walk to museums! Or what about on The mall? All that space!

Parks are public property, which complement density in an urban place.

We don't need to build densely on parks - we need to do so on shopping centers, low rise commercial spaces, etc.

[Anonymous]

There's an easy way to tell whether you live in a densely populated city. Look at a map. Do you see a subway? If so, then, yes you live in a densely populated area. Cities that aren't densely populated don't bother building subway systems.

[Anonymous]

There is no reason for Friendship Heights to be bound by the height limits given Maryland has high rises right across Western Ave. Seems like it is limiting tax revenue and population/affordable housing opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for Friendship Heights to be bound by the height limits given Maryland has high rises right across Western Ave. Seems like it is limiting tax revenue and population/affordable housing opportunities.

Ugh. Who wants high rises? Move to the suburbs if you want high rises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for Friendship Heights to be bound by the height limits given Maryland has high rises right across Western Ave. Seems like it is limiting tax revenue and population/affordable housing opportunities.

Ugh. Who wants high rises? Move to the suburbs if you want high rises.

I love our low height of DC. I suspect visitors love it as well. #keep DC, DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for Friendship Heights to be bound by the height limits given Maryland has high rises right across Western Ave. Seems like it is limiting tax revenue and population/affordable housing opportunities.

Ugh. Who wants high rises? Move to the suburbs if you want high rises.

I love our low height of DC. I suspect visitors love it as well. #keep DC, DC!

+1000