Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

[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.

Agree that this is part of the value of zoning--and people need to be able to rely on it. Leaving vibrancy to developers is a poor idea.

Absolutely! Just think of all of the pre-1920 parts of DC! What horrible places they are. Nobody would want to live there or shop there or do anything there. Thank heavens for zoning, which brought us vibrant homogeneity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

Why do you keep asking this question?

[Anonymous]

Because no one has answered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

This is getting weird…no developer is just putting up a 12 story building next to my SFH so this has all been a theoretical argument. Now you want to know what fantasy people are living in this theoretical building…I don’t know, but this entire discussion was theoretical.

Did you honestly think you were suggesting a real scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because no one has answered.

It's difficult to answer the question "Who is going to live in these buildings that aren't built and furthermore will only get built if there is demand for them (i.e., people will want to live in them)?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because no one has answered.

You aren’t saying what you really mean.

Many of us are saying if a private developer wants to risk their own capital to put up a building…well they wouldn’t do that if they didn’t think there was demand. Just like any other business.

If you are right, then you can change the zoning or do anything you want and nobody will build anything.

So, by default…if they build it they think there is demand. Again, if you are right…nothing will get built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

This is getting weird…no developer is just putting up a 12 story building next to my SFH so this has all been a theoretical argument. Now you want to know what fantasy people are living in this theoretical building…I don’t know, but this entire discussion was theoretical.

Did you honestly think you were suggesting a real scenario?

Ask Arlington how theoretical imagination becomes your worst nightmare with one action of pro-left Council. So now you can wake up next door to a 6 unit building on a 6000 sqft lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

This is getting weird…no developer is just putting up a 12 story building next to my SFH so this has all been a theoretical argument. Now you want to know what fantasy people are living in this theoretical building…I don’t know, but this entire discussion was theoretical.

Did you honestly think you were suggesting a real scenario?

Ask Arlington how theoretical imagination becomes your worst nightmare with one action of pro-left Council. So now you can wake up next door to a 6 unit building on a 6000 sqft lot.

That's your worst nightmare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

This is getting weird…no developer is just putting up a 12 story building next to my SFH so this has all been a theoretical argument. Now you want to know what fantasy people are living in this theoretical building…I don’t know, but this entire discussion was theoretical.

Did you honestly think you were suggesting a real scenario?

Ask Arlington how theoretical imagination becomes your worst nightmare with one action of pro-left Council. So now you can wake up next door to a 6 unit building on a 6000 sqft lot.

That’s not a 12 story building…I actually don’t care much about a 6 unit building…which is basically a 3-story duplex.

[Anonymous]

Now the development agenda is to hollow out single family zoning in Northwest DC by allowing 6 to 9 unit apartment buildings by right on side streets within a half-mile of a bus line. That’s pretty much anywhere. They soothingly call it “gentle density.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

Why? Who is going to live in all these condos? Where is the evidence that DC’s population is going to triple, or more?

This is getting weird…no developer is just putting up a 12 story building next to my SFH so this has all been a theoretical argument. Now you want to know what fantasy people are living in this theoretical building…I don’t know, but this entire discussion was theoretical.

Did you honestly think you were suggesting a real scenario?

Ask Arlington how theoretical imagination becomes your worst nightmare with one action of pro-left Council. So now you can wake up next door to a 6 unit building on a 6000 sqft lot.

That’s not a 12 story building…I actually don’t care much about a 6 unit building…which is basically a 3-story duplex.

You’ll care when it’s next door; 6 hvac compressors going and 12-15 cars in your street

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now the development agenda is to hollow out single family zoning in Northwest DC by allowing 6 to 9 unit apartment buildings by right on side streets within a half-mile of a bus line. That’s pretty much anywhere. They soothingly call it “gentle density.”

Really? Do you have a citation for that.

[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

No, “we” do not. SFHs are great and I love mine, as do all my neighbors near the Metro in CCDC. Those who love apartments have tons of options nearby, in existing apartments and condos. Plenty of vacancies!

[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.

You bought eyes wide open re: the zoning for your land. Sorry bud. This isn’t the frontier, circa 1850