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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard a phrase used: the “Clarendonization” of neighborhoods. People have a definite image of what that means.

They don't have to look like Clarendon any more than they have to look like Paris - which is actually far more dense than Clarendon. Or any more than any suburban single-house neighborhood has to look like any other suburban single-house neighborhood, which in this area they actually do.

I dont think any of us mind if they "look like" Paris.i am not sure how youd pull that off, but its a good look. However, the dense apattment housing in Paris is cramped + noisy to live in. .

I love Paris. But I wouldn’t want AU Park - and I believe my neighbors would agree - to be Paris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So as per OP's original post, and what we now know about the virus, and reports of Mendelson's comments, I would say that the reality is that if the Comprehensive Plan is off of the table for 2020, it will be off of the table for quite a while.

Some posts in this thread seem to imply that we will make it through 'short term' problem and cannot risk long term Comp Plan goals. What this COVID situation is showing us daily is that it is not a short term issue. It is going to be with us in one way or another for at least a couple of years.

We will get back to work and DC will see something of a return to life as we knew it, but there will be designed scars for quite a while and designed habit changes.

Comp Plan was really surviving on momentum and being pushed along by a Mayor who was not getting a lot of push back because there were not a lot of issues consuming the public attention. The same camps were entrenched in their lines as always (DCPS, homelessness, Crime, NIMBY) but the vast majority of the population was happy to simply 'get by' every day in the relatively good living we have in DC. Now that indifferent camp has been poked with a stick and is at least paying attention some new issues... like crowding. So things like 'let's change the height rules' go from potentially slipping under our non observant consciousness to our collectively asking 'whoa...why do we want high rises or even more people in supermarkets...'

It will take quite a bit of time before people are going to be racing to add more people to any equation in a deliberate or programmed manner. And even those new equations will see fundamental changes as people seek to distance rather than focus on densely packed common area or corridors. (Do you think that occupants of DC's new family shelters wish that they had the option of cooking in their apartments now rather than having to eat in common areas with warmed up delivered food?)

This is thoughtful. I would also add to the list: should it necessarily still a top priority to double down on adding even more height and density within 1 mike of Metro stations for the purpose of increasingly ridership on the Metro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're unhappy with the density in DC, move. No one is stopping you. Move to NYC. Or Hong Kong. Or Manila. There are plenty of places in the world where you can live cheek-to-jowl with your neighbor. Some of us like DC because it's not like that. DC is a big city that's actually livable.

+1000

The idea of increasing density in DC seems awful. Why would I want that? The city is already too crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as per OP's original post, and what we now know about the virus, and reports of Mendelson's comments, I would say that the reality is that if the Comprehensive Plan is off of the table for 2020, it will be off of the table for quite a while.

Some posts in this thread seem to imply that we will make it through 'short term' problem and cannot risk long term Comp Plan goals. What this COVID situation is showing us daily is that it is not a short term issue. It is going to be with us in one way or another for at least a couple of years.

We will get back to work and DC will see something of a return to life as we knew it, but there will be designed scars for quite a while and designed habit changes.

Comp Plan was really surviving on momentum and being pushed along by a Mayor who was not getting a lot of push back because there were not a lot of issues consuming the public attention. The same camps were entrenched in their lines as always (DCPS, homelessness, Crime, NIMBY) but the vast majority of the population was happy to simply 'get by' every day in the relatively good living we have in DC. Now that indifferent camp has been poked with a stick and is at least paying attention some new issues... like crowding. So things like 'let's change the height rules' go from potentially slipping under our non observant consciousness to our collectively asking 'whoa...why do we want high rises or even more people in supermarkets...'

It will take quite a bit of time before people are going to be racing to add more people to any equation in a deliberate or programmed manner. And even those new equations will see fundamental changes as people seek to distance rather than focus on densely packed common area or corridors. (Do you think that occupants of DC's new family shelters wish that they had the option of cooking in their apartments now rather than having to eat in common areas with warmed up delivered food?)

This is thoughtful. I would also add to the list: should it necessarily still a top priority to double down on adding even more height and density within 1 mike of Metro stations for the purpose of increasingly ridership on the Metro?

The purpose of building housing near transit is not to increase transit ridership. It's to increase the number of people who can conveniently get around via transit vs having to get into a car and drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard a phrase used: the “Clarendonization” of neighborhoods. People have a definite image of what that means.

They don't have to look like Clarendon any more than they have to look like Paris - which is actually far more dense than Clarendon. Or any more than any suburban single-house neighborhood has to look like any other suburban single-house neighborhood, which in this area they actually do.

I dont think any of us mind if they "look like" Paris.i am not sure how youd pull that off, but its a good look. However, the dense apattment housing in Paris is cramped + noisy to live in. .

I love Paris. But I wouldn’t want AU Park - and I believe my neighbors would agree - to be Paris.

We're back to the "I live in the neighborhood, and I like it just fine the way it is" argument against increasing the supply of housing in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard a phrase used: the “Clarendonization” of neighborhoods. People have a definite image of what that means.

They don't have to look like Clarendon any more than they have to look like Paris - which is actually far more dense than Clarendon. Or any more than any suburban single-house neighborhood has to look like any other suburban single-house neighborhood, which in this area they actually do.

I dont think any of us mind if they "look like" Paris.i am not sure how youd pull that off, but its a good look. However, the dense apattment housing in Paris is cramped + noisy to live in. .

I love Paris. But I wouldn’t want AU Park - and I believe my neighbors would agree - to be Paris.

We're back to the "I live in the neighborhood, and I like it just fine the way it is" argument against increasing the supply of housing in the city.

Increasing the supply doesn't really accomplish anything, except make the city less livable.

It's pointless to argue about it now because COVID-19 has killed the idea of increasing density for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

In a pandemic, density kills. No one will add density now. It’s a public health issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as per OP's original post, and what we now know about the virus, and reports of Mendelson's comments, I would say that the reality is that if the Comprehensive Plan is off of the table for 2020, it will be off of the table for quite a while.

Some posts in this thread seem to imply that we will make it through 'short term' problem and cannot risk long term Comp Plan goals. What this COVID situation is showing us daily is that it is not a short term issue. It is going to be with us in one way or another for at least a couple of years.

We will get back to work and DC will see something of a return to life as we knew it, but there will be designed scars for quite a while and designed habit changes.

Comp Plan was really surviving on momentum and being pushed along by a Mayor who was not getting a lot of push back because there were not a lot of issues consuming the public attention. The same camps were entrenched in their lines as always (DCPS, homelessness, Crime, NIMBY) but the vast majority of the population was happy to simply 'get by' every day in the relatively good living we have in DC. Now that indifferent camp has been poked with a stick and is at least paying attention some new issues... like crowding. So things like 'let's change the height rules' go from potentially slipping under our non observant consciousness to our collectively asking 'whoa...why do we want high rises or even more people in supermarkets...'

It will take quite a bit of time before people are going to be racing to add more people to any equation in a deliberate or programmed manner. And even those new equations will see fundamental changes as people seek to distance rather than focus on densely packed common area or corridors. (Do you think that occupants of DC's new family shelters wish that they had the option of cooking in their apartments now rather than having to eat in common areas with warmed up delivered food?)

This is thoughtful. I would also add to the list: should it necessarily still a top priority to double down on adding even more height and density within 1 mike of Metro stations for the purpose of increasingly ridership on the Metro?

The purpose of building housing near transit is not to increase transit ridership. It's to increase the number of people who can conveniently get around via transit vs having to get into a car and drive.

Which, of course, significantly increase transit ridership and crowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as per OP's original post, and what we now know about the virus, and reports of Mendelson's comments, I would say that the reality is that if the Comprehensive Plan is off of the table for 2020, it will be off of the table for quite a while.

Some posts in this thread seem to imply that we will make it through 'short term' problem and cannot risk long term Comp Plan goals. What this COVID situation is showing us daily is that it is not a short term issue. It is going to be with us in one way or another for at least a couple of years.

We will get back to work and DC will see something of a return to life as we knew it, but there will be designed scars for quite a while and designed habit changes.

Comp Plan was really surviving on momentum and being pushed along by a Mayor who was not getting a lot of push back because there were not a lot of issues consuming the public attention. The same camps were entrenched in their lines as always (DCPS, homelessness, Crime, NIMBY) but the vast majority of the population was happy to simply 'get by' every day in the relatively good living we have in DC. Now that indifferent camp has been poked with a stick and is at least paying attention some new issues... like crowding. So things like 'let's change the height rules' go from potentially slipping under our non observant consciousness to our collectively asking 'whoa...why do we want high rises or even more people in supermarkets...'

It will take quite a bit of time before people are going to be racing to add more people to any equation in a deliberate or programmed manner. And even those new equations will see fundamental changes as people seek to distance rather than focus on densely packed common area or corridors. (Do you think that occupants of DC's new family shelters wish that they had the option of cooking in their apartments now rather than having to eat in common areas with warmed up delivered food?)

This is thoughtful. I would also add to the list: should it necessarily still a top priority to double down on adding even more height and density within 1 mike of Metro stations for the purpose of increasingly ridership on the Metro?

The purpose of building housing near transit is not to increase transit ridership. It's to increase the number of people who can conveniently get around via transit vs having to get into a car and drive.

Can we not forget DC has great bus lines? I take buses all the time and they pick up /drop off all over

[Anonymous]

OTOH, without a crazy long commute for a few months, how will the 3 hours round-trip for the sake of a quieter more spread out neighborhood look after this? And how are you doing with grocery deliveries in your exurbs or rural area?

[Anonymous]

Im guessing a lot of worksplaces shall change forever more PP. Vis 3 hour round trip. With regard to groceries, most suburbs have places to shop??? A lot are redesigning to have "village squares" as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The purpose of building housing near transit is not to increase transit ridership. It's to increase the number of people who can conveniently get around via transit vs having to get into a car and drive.

Which, of course, significantly increase transit ridership and crowding.

Well, it certainly increases transit ridership. It doesn't necessarily increase crowding on transit. People who live near transit are more likely to use transit at off-peak times as well as peak times, and then of course it's possible to add capacity, with longer trains/buses and more frequent trains/buses. Plus replacing car trips with non-car trips has benefits like better air quality, safer streets/fewer crashes, less incidence of conditions associated with being sedentary, and, eventually, more public space for people because the city no longer requires as much space for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im guessing a lot of worksplaces shall change forever more PP. Vis 3 hour round trip. With regard to groceries, most suburbs have places to shop??? A lot are redesigning to have "village squares" as well.

Of course most suburbs have grocery stores. But the typical exurban or rural dwelling is often not near a grocery store, and of course delivery services are able to make far fewer deliveries per day in exurban/rural areas than in urban areas, because everything is so spread out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can we not forget DC has great bus lines? I take buses all the time and they pick up /drop off all over

Buses are transit.

But DC does not have great bus lines. They're slow, they're often crowded, and they're vulnerable to cuts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/chaotic-mess-slows-regions-ambitious-plans-to-expand-bus-service/2020/03/08/a822db48-5ff7-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im guessing a lot of worksplaces shall change forever more PP. Vis 3 hour round trip. With regard to groceries, most suburbs have places to shop??? A lot are redesigning to have "village squares" as well.

The "village squares" are redesigned shopping centers. But, they are still shopping centers with free parking lots. And, they don't necessarily replace additional shopping centers down the road. The difference? They have more upscale stores and restaurants.

For example Loudon One is a nice "village square" but it doesn't replace the many, many grocery stores in the area. Same with Fairfax Corner.