Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

This thread is about land in private ownership, not about Rock Creek Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

Absolute nonsense…again, I doubt you have ever worked in the business world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

Sadly, for you, we live in a capitalist society with the ability for private ownership of land. If you don't like that system, then maybe the USA isn't the right place for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

The idea that what I am able to build on my land does not affect the value of your land is false. If you build a SFH next a to 12 story building, your SFH is not worth much. What I pay for a piece of property is affected directly by the surroundings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

The idea that what I am able to build on my land does not affect the value of your land is false. If you build a SFH next a to 12 story building, your SFH is not worth much. What I pay for a piece of property is affected directly by the surroundings.

I think everyone is familiar with the concept of location, location, location. The question is whether you should get to tell your neighbor what your neighbor can and can't build on property that is owned by your neighbor, not you. And no, don't bring up a toxic waste dump. This thread is about housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Why? Do condos or apartments have cooties that would infect the houses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

The idea that what I am able to build on my land does not affect the value of your land is false. If you build a SFH next a to 12 story building, your SFH is not worth much. What I pay for a piece of property is affected directly by the surroundings.

I don’t understand…i mean it is weird to build a SFH next to a 12 story building because you just pissed away the value of that land which also could have a 12 story building built on it. Nobody would pay you the value of a SFH to actually live in it…but it would be worth a lot because you can also construct a high rise on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

Sadly, for you, we live in a capitalist society with the ability for private ownership of land. If you don't like that system, then maybe the USA isn't the right place for you.

Everyone loves private ownership of land until someone builds an aluminum smelter (or homeless shelter) right next door. Don't get me started on when neighbors start adding pop-ups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

Sadly, for you, we live in a capitalist society with the ability for private ownership of land. If you don't like that system, then maybe the USA isn't the right place for you.

Everyone loves private ownership of land until someone builds an aluminum smelter (or homeless shelter) right next door. Don't get me started on when neighbors start adding pop-ups.

Because living next to apartments is just exactly like living next to an aluminum smelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Why? Do condos or apartments have cooties that would infect the houses?

Essentially yes. They are anywhere boxes for anywhere people. They are temporary housing for transient people, and DC already has enough of that. What DC needs is something to attract and retain those transients so they become actual residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Why? Do condos or apartments have cooties that would infect the houses?

Essentially yes. They are anywhere boxes for anywhere people. They are temporary housing for transient people, and DC already has enough of that. What DC needs is something to attract and retain those transients so they become actual residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

It benefits the people who want to live in the buildings!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

Didn’t you just literally define NIMBYism? Build it over there…but not here?

YIMBYs never want to upzone their own neighborhoods. It's always someone else's neighborhood that has to change. Someone else is always the bad guy, it's never them. Hence, Yes in Your Back Yard.

Huh? That again is the definition of NIMBYism…you are confused

They're two sides of the same coin. Sorry that's too confusing for you to comprehend.