Rock Creek Park needs to be developed

[Anonymous]

There's plenty of affordable housing in the region. There is o housing shortage in the Washington MSA.

You get a roof over your head in the area that you can afford, which may very well be in Prince William or Hagerstown or Lothian. Or Germantown.

To the victor go the spoils, in this case, a condo with a private roof deck steps from 14th St. You're not entitled to that, you earn it. Encourage your children to do better.

[Anonymous]

Go away, GGWash trollbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

Dc has tons of affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

The prices would tell you otherwise.

DC has more sqft parkland per person than almost any city in America. The idea that it should be off limits to talk about how to better utilize this land to make housing more affordable is baffling.

NP and I also don’t think there is a lack of housing in DC. There is a lack of housing that MC families want- which are flipped free standing houses with backyards. There are tons of new construction going on in Navy Yard, NOMA, lots of underdeveloped land on St. Elizabeth’s Campus, lots of empty office and former retail buildings, etc. People just want specific things and therefore pay 850,000 for a flipped 3 bedroom rowhouse in Brightwood.

If families cannot afford to live in the city within reasonable proximity to jobs, then what kind of city is that?

DC should be a city for everyone, including working families. And putting a limited amount of housing on the abundant parkland may be an opportunity to make the city more liveable for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

Technically, the land in Rock Creek Park from Oregon west and south of Military is Ward 3. So yes, this can still be in Ward 3 if that is a necessary objective for some reason.

[Anonymous]

DC population is 689k. The highest population was 802k. Still got a lot of housing stock unused.

[Anonymous]

The mall should be developed into single family housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

[Anonymous]

So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

The prices would tell you otherwise.

DC has more sqft parkland per person than almost any city in America. The idea that it should be off limits to talk about how to better utilize this land to make housing more affordable is baffling.

NP and I also don’t think there is a lack of housing in DC. There is a lack of housing that MC families want- which are flipped free standing houses with backyards. There are tons of new construction going on in Navy Yard, NOMA, lots of underdeveloped land on St. Elizabeth’s Campus, lots of empty office and former retail buildings, etc. People just want specific things and therefore pay 850,000 for a flipped 3 bedroom rowhouse in Brightwood.

If families cannot afford to live in the city within reasonable proximity to jobs, then what kind of city is that?

DC should be a city for everyone, including working families. And putting a limited amount of housing on the abundant parkland may be an opportunity to make the city more liveable for everyone.

DC should be a city for everyone. What are you, 11? An overseas troll farm bot?

DC doesn't "need" to be anything. But, as a long-time DC resident, I couldn't be happier that the population is getting wealthier. Better neighbors, more lovely streetscapes because people have the resources to take care of their homes and yards.

I know I'm not alone in not wanting to pave the way for an influx of struggling families to move here. So long as they have shelter -- somewhere -- that's ethical and moral and good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!