Bethesda Row after the Purple Line Opens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

DP. Those are ridiculous exaggerations and distortions of the PP’s arguments, but that’s where the progressive YIMBYs always go instead of admitting they’re wrong or engaging on the substance. It’s no wonder that the more we listen to you the worse the housing problem gets.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

Is it any wonder that "progressive housing advocates" have begun to parrot the deregulatory agenda of the Libertarian property rights fringe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

Is it any wonder that "progressive housing advocates" have begun to parrot the deregulatory agenda of the Libertarian property rights fringe?

Yup. Not exactly the right recipe for attractive and livable cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

Is it any wonder that "progressive housing advocates" have begun to parrot the deregulatory agenda of the Libertarian property rights fringe?

Yup. Not exactly the right recipe for attractive and livable cities.

Which centrally-planned cities do you consider most attractive and livable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

Is it any wonder that "progressive housing advocates" have begun to parrot the deregulatory agenda of the Libertarian property rights fringe?

Yup. Not exactly the right recipe for attractive and livable cities.

Which centrally-planned cities do you consider most attractive and livable?

Vienna, Oslo, Berlin, etc. Europeans value the proximity to rural areas for health and well being. They are also accustomed to housing density and enjoy communal gardens that are safe for families.

Here in the U.S. Jackson Heights Queens (NYC) successfully adopted the European model of density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

They need to speak up in Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, etc… Otherwise the local housing advocates who don’t value open space will continue to support policies that pave over open space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Oh, really? Funny how about ten years ago the Planning Commission told us all this new development in downtown Bethesda would result in more parks. Instead we got more crowding without an improvement in parks and green space. Oh and they told the retirees in Chevy Chase that the new development would enable their kids to move back to Bethesda and Chevy Chase. Instead we have luxury housing and low income housing, with the few remaining original homes (generally of high construction value) leveled to make way for more development. If they had just left Bethesda alone, there would have been more rental units (naturally occurring affordable housing) in both old original homes and the old garden apartments.

The county bought land that they said they would use for a park but then sold it back to a developer. Total bait and switch.

Wow, that's terrible. Where was this - ie what neighborhood got betrayed for filthy lucre? Parks matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

An impressive oversimplification. Next you'll say: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Using paid labor increases the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on the use of enslaved labor.

Or: Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Housing code requirements increase the cost of infill development. It's that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing housing code requirements.

Is it any wonder that "progressive housing advocates" have begun to parrot the deregulatory agenda of the Libertarian property rights fringe?

Yup. Not exactly the right recipe for attractive and livable cities.

Which centrally-planned cities do you consider most attractive and livable?

Vienna, Oslo, Berlin, etc. Europeans value the proximity to rural areas for health and well being. They are also accustomed to housing density and enjoy communal gardens that are safe for families.

Here in the U.S. Jackson Heights Queens (NYC) successfully adopted the European model of density.

You think Vienna and Berlin were centrally planned? :shock:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

They need to speak up in Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, etc… Otherwise the local housing advocates who don’t value open space will continue to support policies that pave over open space.

Don't worry, they are speaking up in Montgomery County. And then people like the PP complain about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

They need to speak up in Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, etc… Otherwise the local housing advocates who don’t value open space will continue to support policies that pave over open space.

Montgomery County’s left YIMBYs and its right NIMBYs agree on artificially preserving excessive open space instead of building more housing, so there’s no threat to the ag preserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and yes, exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it.

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks!

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are anti urban growth boundaries which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp.

Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative.

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).

They need to speak up in Prince William County, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, etc… Otherwise the local housing advocates who don’t value open space will continue to support policies that pave over open space.

Montgomery County’s left YIMBYs and its right NIMBYs agree on artificially preserving excessive open space instead of building more housing, so there’s no threat to the ag preserve.

Ag Reserve.