Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

[Anonymous]

Mendelson’s office is saying that the Office of Planning has to go back to the drawing board in light of post-COVID realty. And Council will not be taking up the Comp Plan amendments in 2029.

[Anonymous]

2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shop more on line and sit-down restaurants are less common. So DC needs more density to support even the same level of retail and eating and drinking establishments. This is another important reason to bust through barriers to build a lot more housing.

Somehow, I think this is backwards. Businesses usually open when there is a need. Supply and demand. You want to create demand. It doesn't usually work that way.

If you hadn't noticed, people are purchasing online. All retail is struggling--suburban malls were losing stores right and left before the pandemic. This won't help--although people will likely be anxious to get out when this is over.

You don't build high density in order to help the corner bar. It just doesn't work that way.

This + 1 million

Check out Rockville Town Center in MoCo. Such a disaster, and this is exactly why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

So now green space, a leafy tree canopy and residential streets where people can ride a bike are indicators of “exclusion”?! Well, if your idea of density is destroying these qualities of life, then no one wants your vibrant density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

So now green space, a leafy tree canopy and residential streets where people can ride a bike are indicators of “exclusion”?! Well, if your idea of density is destroying these qualities of life, then no one wants your vibrant density.

I wonder why it's so bad to have diversity. Neighborhoods with different feels and set-ups. I would think that would be considered as giving a city character and options. There is something really sci-fi to me about this 'little boxes' vision of urban planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

So now green space, a leafy tree canopy and residential streets where people can ride a bike are indicators of “exclusion”?! Well, if your idea of density is destroying these qualities of life, then no one wants your vibrant density.

No, the cost of real estate in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park is the indicator of exclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

So now green space, a leafy tree canopy and residential streets where people can ride a bike are indicators of “exclusion”?! Well, if your idea of density is destroying these qualities of life, then no one wants your vibrant density.

No, the cost of real estate in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park is the indicator of exclusion.

And how would more high end, expensive condo towers, if these areas are up-zones, address your “exclusivity”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

Many people choose to buy homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park for the neighborhoods’ village in the city character.” CP is an historic district, moreover. I would think that protecting that character is pretty important to those neighborhoods.

So when you talk about "desirable," you mean, "desirable to people who already own their homes in Palisades, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park and don't want their neighborhoods to change"? That's not typically how desirability is defined in real estate.

Sure it is. It’s what makes these areas special — green space, walkable, quiet side streets, historic character. That’s why people move there. If they want nightlife and “vibrancy” then they find U Street more desirable.

All you're saying is that people who own property in exclusive areas want to maintain the exclusiveness of the exclusive areas they own property. Which is just about as persuasive as rich people wanting to keep taxes on rich people low.

So now green space, a leafy tree canopy and residential streets where people can ride a bike are indicators of “exclusion”?! Well, if your idea of density is destroying these qualities of life, then no one wants your vibrant density.

I wonder why it's so bad to have diversity. Neighborhoods with different feels and set-ups. I would think that would be considered as giving a city character and options. There is something really sci-fi to me about this 'little boxes' vision of urban planning.

Exactly. Why must every area become generic copy of the other? We have very diverse options in DC: modern areas like the Waterfront and Ballpark district, many row house areas, dynamic late night areas like U Street, historic areas like Georgetown, suburban neighborhoods like Forest Hills and Crestwood, and neighborhoods with more of a village feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And how would more high end, expensive condo towers, if these areas are up-zones, address your “exclusivity”?

Dude, you're trying to have it all ways here.

Units in "expensive condo towers" are desirable. Otherwise they wouldn't be expensive. However, they are less expensive than equivalent single-family detached houses in the same area.

And more people can live in a multi-story, multi-unit building than in a single-family detached house, because that's the density part of density.

The basic truth is: you live in an exclusive area, and you want to keep it that way, because for people who can afford to live in exclusive areas, it's a nice life. That's totally understandable. It's also totally unlikely to persuade people who aren't in your circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Why must every area become generic copy of the other? We have very diverse options in DC: modern areas like the Waterfront and Ballpark district, many row house areas, dynamic late night areas like U Street, historic areas like Georgetown, suburban neighborhoods like Forest Hills and Crestwood, and neighborhoods with more of a village feel.

Can you please point me towards the parts of the Future Land Use Maps that require all areas to become the same?