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

[Anonymous]

Somehow density loses its allure when all of the fast casual concept eateries and craft cocktail bars are closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This isn’t about affordable housing, folks. That is just a pretext for the mayor to increase allowable height and density in neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, so that her crony developers can reap huge profits by building 13 story luxury condo buildings. The proponents claim that a minuscule percentage of “inclusive zoning” units (which are pegged at fairly high income levels) in such upscale projects will make housing affordable. That’s bunk - it’s trickle down theory and the public can see through the B.S.

Let's talk about the profit that developers made while building neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park - Chevy Chase Land Company and Cleveland Park Land Company, respectively. If they hadn't developed, at a tidy profit, you wouldn't be living there.

I think that people value these neighborhoods for the leafy quiet streets, the fact that folks often know their neighbors, and that you can see the sky. Put up a lot of 10-14 story buildings across the neighborhoods and they lose much of the character that makes them special. There’s still plenty of vacant or nearly vacant (ie parking lots) large parcels in the city, to add thousands of housing units. Each of the aforementioned neighborhoods already has a number of apartment buildings on the avenues, so why is it necessary to build over single family streets and pedestrian scale historic districts ?

It doesnt make any sense. How to fight the Mayor's initiative? Its a bad one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This isn’t about affordable housing, folks. That is just a pretext for the mayor to increase allowable height and density in neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, so that her crony developers can reap huge profits by building 13 story luxury condo buildings. The proponents claim that a minuscule percentage of “inclusive zoning” units (which are pegged at fairly high income levels) in such upscale projects will make housing affordable. That’s bunk - it’s trickle down theory and the public can see through the B.S.

Let's talk about the profit that developers made while building neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park - Chevy Chase Land Company and Cleveland Park Land Company, respectively. If they hadn't developed, at a tidy profit, you wouldn't be living there.

I think that people value these neighborhoods for the leafy quiet streets, the fact that folks often know their neighbors, and that you can see the sky. Put up a lot of 10-14 story buildings across the neighborhoods and they lose much of the character that makes them special. There’s still plenty of vacant or nearly vacant (ie parking lots) large parcels in the city, to add thousands of housing units. Each of the aforementioned neighborhoods already has a number of apartment buildings on the avenues, so why is it necessary to build over single family streets and pedestrian scale historic districts ?

What does that have to do with developer profits? Aren't you angry that the developers ruined those perfectly nice areas 120 years ago by subdividing and building unnecessary housing? People who lived there valued those areas! And then along came the developers and put up a lot of houses, and the areas totally lost the character that made them special. Even worse, those same developers built public transportation to serve those areas!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This isn’t about affordable housing, folks. That is just a pretext for the mayor to increase allowable height and density in neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, so that her crony developers can reap huge profits by building 13 story luxury condo buildings. The proponents claim that a minuscule percentage of “inclusive zoning” units (which are pegged at fairly high income levels) in such upscale projects will make housing affordable. That’s bunk - it’s trickle down theory and the public can see through the B.S.

Let's talk about the profit that developers made while building neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park - Chevy Chase Land Company and Cleveland Park Land Company, respectively. If they hadn't developed, at a tidy profit, you wouldn't be living there.

I think that people value these neighborhoods for the leafy quiet streets, the fact that folks often know their neighbors, and that you can see the sky. Put up a lot of 10-14 story buildings across the neighborhoods and they lose much of the character that makes them special. There’s still plenty of vacant or nearly vacant (ie parking lots) large parcels in the city, to add thousands of housing units. Each of the aforementioned neighborhoods already has a number of apartment buildings on the avenues, so why is it necessary to build over single family streets and pedestrian scale historic districts ?

What does that have to do with developer profits? Aren't you angry that the developers ruined those perfectly nice areas 120 years ago by subdividing and building unnecessary housing? People who lived there valued those areas! And then along came the developers and put up a lot of houses, and the areas totally lost the character that made them special. Even worse, those same developers built public transportation to serve those areas!

What? You are kind of making facts up here. Grover Cleveland owned the area and sold it for the purpose of being developed when he lost re election in 1888. The houses built there were originally built as summer homes because it was cooler and people did not have AC. Most of the homes were built in the next 40 years and have remained unchanged since then. Oak View subdivision and Cleveland Heights were the first subdivisions built. You need to check out Ghost of DC and look at some of the old DC maps and property advertisements. Oh and Wisconsin Ave was already there (High Street) though a street car was added later. Connecticut there as well as an original Diagonal. So your facts are kind of all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This isn’t about affordable housing, folks. That is just a pretext for the mayor to increase allowable height and density in neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, so that her crony developers can reap huge profits by building 13 story luxury condo buildings. The proponents claim that a minuscule percentage of “inclusive zoning” units (which are pegged at fairly high income levels) in such upscale projects will make housing affordable. That’s bunk - it’s trickle down theory and the public can see through the B.S.

Let's talk about the profit that developers made while building neighborhoods like Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park - Chevy Chase Land Company and Cleveland Park Land Company, respectively. If they hadn't developed, at a tidy profit, you wouldn't be living there.

I think that people value these neighborhoods for the leafy quiet streets, the fact that folks often know their neighbors, and that you can see the sky. Put up a lot of 10-14 story buildings across the neighborhoods and they lose much of the character that makes them special. There’s still plenty of vacant or nearly vacant (ie parking lots) large parcels in the city, to add thousands of housing units. Each of the aforementioned neighborhoods already has a number of apartment buildings on the avenues, so why is it necessary to build over single family streets and pedestrian scale historic districts ?

What does that have to do with developer profits? Aren't you angry that the developers ruined those perfectly nice areas 120 years ago by subdividing and building unnecessary housing? People who lived there valued those areas! And then along came the developers and put up a lot of houses, and the areas totally lost the character that made them special. Even worse, those same developers built public transportation to serve those areas!

What? You are kind of making facts up here. Grover Cleveland owned the area and sold it for the purpose of being developed when he lost re election in 1888. The houses built there were originally built as summer homes because it was cooler and people did not have AC. Most of the homes were built in the next 40 years and have remained unchanged since then. Oak View subdivision and Cleveland Heights were the first subdivisions built. You need to check out Ghost of DC and look at some of the old DC maps and property advertisements. Oh and Wisconsin Ave was already there (High Street) though a street car was added later. Connecticut there as well as an original Diagonal. So your facts are kind of all over the place.

Exactly. Developers, profits, new buildings, public transportation (streetcars), change. All the things you're opposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somehow density loses its allure when all of the fast casual concept eateries and craft cocktail bars are closed.

The only people who care about density are 30 year old white guys who want to live near bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow density loses its allure when all of the fast casual concept eateries and craft cocktail bars are closed.

The only people who care about density are 30 year old white guys who want to live near bars.

Don't think it matter what race they are but I would say that the only people that care are the people who have a hand in the development. Our city council is of all races and they all love making money off of this. Especially the mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somehow density loses its allure when all of the fast casual concept eateries and craft cocktail bars are closed.

The only people who care about density are 30 year old white guys who want to live near bars.

Don't think it matter what race they are but I would say that the only people that care are the people who have a hand in the development. Our city council is of all races and they all love making money off of this. Especially the mayor.

For example, people who want to move into the housing the developers build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Exactly. Developers, profits, new buildings, public transportation (streetcars), change. All the things you're opposing.

Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

[Anonymous]

Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

That's a totally understandable personal preference, but it's not a good basis for public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

That's a totally understandable personal preference, but it's not a good basis for public policy.

Ummm...neither is so that our Politicos can make money. The science behind densification is a myth. Look at San Francisco. The science behind open skylines, trees and being able to see the blue sky is far more concrete.

Have you ever walked down a NYC street? Did you know that in good weather the more crowded side is the side in the sun. Because people are drawn to light. Even in NYC, people fight for air rights and sun rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

That's a totally understandable personal preference, but it's not a good basis for public policy.

Ummm...neither is so that our Politicos can make money. The science behind densification is a myth. Look at San Francisco. The science behind open skylines, trees and being able to see the blue sky is far more concrete.

Have you ever walked down a NYC street? Did you know that in good weather the more crowded side is the side in the sun. Because people are drawn to light. Even in NYC, people fight for air rights and sun rights.

Nobody is turning Cleveland Park into Manhattan.

I don't know what you mean by "the science behind densification," but it's pretty basic that there needs to be housing in cities, and that single-family-detached houses with yards in transit-served areas limit the amount of housing available in transit-served areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not opposing development. Opposing these 7 to 14 story buildings being proposed for the thoroughfares. If you cannot see how changing the verticality of a corridor changes its character, well then you will never be able to see where I am coming from even if you don't agree.

Bottom line, I'd rather not have my house be in the shade of a 13 story building on Wisconsin Ave for half of the day.

That's a totally understandable personal preference, but it's not a good basis for public policy.

Ummm...neither is so that our Politicos can make money. The science behind densification is a myth. Look at San Francisco. The science behind open skylines, trees and being able to see the blue sky is far more concrete.

Have you ever walked down a NYC street? Did you know that in good weather the more crowded side is the side in the sun. Because people are drawn to light. Even in NYC, people fight for air rights and sun rights.

Nobody is turning Cleveland Park into Manhattan.

I don't know what you mean by "the science behind densification," but it's pretty basic that there needs to be housing in cities, and that single-family-detached houses with yards in transit-served areas limit the amount of housing available in transit-served areas.

What are you basing your statement on? It is pretty clear to who? Investors? Developers?

"Although urban design theory is unscientific, Marshall wrote, it is not because the ideas are based on nonsense—many of the classic urban thinkers used observations and small pilot studies to describe how cities work. Jane Jacobs, for example, proposed that a city needs four ingredients to be exuberant: mixed uses, short blocks, buildings that vary in age and condition, and a dense concentration of people. "At the core of this book is a four-part hypothesis that is demanding to be tested," Marshall says. "But when I went to look to see if it had been tested, there was virtually nothing." The problem with urban design, he adds, is that its theories are untested, yet accepted as fact." -Stephen Marshall of University College London

[Anonymous]

You're disagreeing with the facts that there needs to be housing in cities and that multi-family housing provides more housing units per land area than single-family houses with yards? Really?