Any momentum to preserve open space?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Don’t want parks. Just want open green fields.

In DC? You'll need a time machine set for 1800.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Don’t want parks. Just want open green fields.

That's going to require maintenance. It's not natural to have an open green field in this area. This area didn't have prairies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The density gang would like to see open space turned into luxury apartments.

Why are you this confused?

Density advocates want more density in urban areas so that housing doesn’t eat up every last green space that's left. Anti-sprawl. You literally have things completely backwards!

Density advocates love to talk about “induced demand” in the context of building roads. But they never mention the induced demand caused by building more housing.

Which then induces demand for roads. It’s funny how no one complained about 270 until there were a bunch of houses upcounty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The density gang would like to see open space turned into luxury apartments.

Why are you this confused?

Density advocates want more density in urban areas so that housing doesn’t eat up every last green space that's left. Anti-sprawl. You literally have things completely backwards!

Density advocates love to talk about “induced demand” in the context of building roads. But they never mention the induced demand caused by building more housing.

Which then induces demand for roads. It’s funny how no one complained about 270 until there were a bunch of houses upcounty.

Housing doesn't induce demand for roads when it's built in places where people can conveniently get where they're going without driving. I would have thought that went without saying. But you're right, housing does contribute to induced demand for roads when it's built in places where you have to drive to get where you're going. I.e., sprawl/exurban housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The density gang would like to see open space turned into luxury apartments.

Why are you this confused?

Density advocates want more density in urban areas so that housing doesn’t eat up every last green space that's left. Anti-sprawl. You literally have things completely backwards!

Density advocates love to talk about “induced demand” in the context of building roads. But they never mention the induced demand caused by building more housing.

Which then induces demand for roads. It’s funny how no one complained about 270 until there were a bunch of houses upcounty.

Housing doesn't induce demand for roads when it's built in places where people can conveniently get where they're going without driving. I would have thought that went without saying. But you're right, housing does contribute to induced demand for roads when it's built in places where you have to drive to get where you're going. I.e., sprawl/exurban housing.

Worst outside of cities where for decades we've had the stupidest kind of planning and zoning models, like, "this big area here is zoned residential, that big area over there is zoned commercial" and everything becomes a drive or commute, rather than town-center models where for example you can have ground floor retail and businesses and homes on upper floors. Growing up in Europe one could easily walk to the grocery store, the bakery, the butcher, repair shop etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

If I were going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on, I would spend zero time stopped in traffic, because I wouldn't drive. Bonus: I would also spend zero time looking for parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

No, it shouldn’t have. You can take metro, bus, walk or bike. It’s a city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

Aside from putting Audi Field within a 12-minute walk from a Metro station. There already is parking on the outskirts of town (at suburban Metro stations) and there already are shuttles to Audi Field (the Metro). No need to require Audi Field to do anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the GGWash people will not rest until every last piece of green space in DC is turned into towers of steel, concrete and glass

That’s more like Florida than DC. DC has more parks and green space than most other cities in the USA.

+10000

Where exactly is Op posting about? Def not inside the beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

DC has no political leverage with the suburbs. It’s neither large nor influential enough to dictate anything.