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

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, the infection rate in DC is 30x that of Hong Kong on a per capita basis.

But it's all because of high-density living...umm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, the infection rate in DC is 30x that of Hong Kong on a per capita basis.

But it's all because of high-density living...umm...

How many times hong kong is new york?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, the infection rate in DC is 30x that of Hong Kong on a per capita basis.

But it's all because of high-density living...umm...

How many times hong kong is new york?

Tell us about the high-density living in southwest Georgia.

[Anonymous]

DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

PP, you are missing the point. The DC described above is all of our DC. DC has height restrictions. It is unusual because of that, but it is our city and it works and yet we still are amazingly dense at this point. We just don't know how by waiving height restrictions in the effort of even more density, we also maintain DC.

This is not an 'elites' trying to maintain 'redlines' this is a DC citizens wanting to be able to see the Washington Monument from NW or NE, see the sky from Downtown or one of our main arteries. We are trying to keep DC the low slung, green parks, fresh air, blue skied city people recognized it as when the height regulations were introduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

PP, you are missing the point. The DC described above is all of our DC. DC has height restrictions. It is unusual because of that, but it is our city and it works and yet we still are amazingly dense at this point. We just don't know how by waiving height restrictions in the effort of even more density, we also maintain DC.

This is not an 'elites' trying to maintain 'redlines' this is a DC citizens wanting to be able to see the Washington Monument from NW or NE, see the sky from Downtown or one of our main arteries. We are trying to keep DC the low slung, green parks, fresh air, blue skied city people recognized it as when the height regulations were introduced.

No, it isn't. It's Cleveland Park, etc. This isn't about height restrictions, it's about building multi-family apartment/condo buildings.

[Anonymous]

I like a low city as well, but if the goal here is to create a dystopian 'Blade Runner' like city with hover cars and thirty story billboards, I could get behind that as well. Isn't that the ultimate goal of density. Where does the density argument end? Blade Runner right? I am coming around.

[Anonymous]

No, it isn't. It's Cleveland Park, etc. This isn't about height restrictions, it's about building multi-family apartment/condo buildings.

You are cherry picking. NW already has plenty of multi family apartments and condo buildings. Just drive down Connecticut or Cathedral or Wis and you can see some of the largest and most beautiful multi family units in the city.

The densifiers, want more and taller and have targeted NW, because they are builders and they see real estate rates. This has nothing to do with 'the city is 200K people short of some magic elixir where WMATA will function and town hall will finally figure out homelessness'. This is a construction and real estate gambit and that is it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, it isn't. It's Cleveland Park, etc. This isn't about height restrictions, it's about building multi-family apartment/condo buildings.

You are cherry picking. NW already has plenty of multi family apartments and condo buildings. Just drive down Connecticut or Cathedral or Wis and you can see some of the largest and most beautiful multi family units in the city.

The densifiers, want more and taller and have targeted NW, because they are builders and they see real estate rates. This has nothing to do with 'the city is 200K people short of some magic elixir where WMATA will function and town hall will finally figure out homelessness'. This is a construction and real estate gambit and that is it.

NW already has plenty of single-family houses, too. So what?

Nobody is building buildings to stand empty. They are building buildings because people want to move into them. In other words, there is a demand for housing, and the builders are supplying housing to meet the demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

When you say "Anacostia" do you actually mean Anacostia, or do you mean "everything across the river"?

Also, do you think the people posting on DCUM about liking their leafy green neighborhoods and not wanting them to change, live in Anacostia (actually Anacostia) or in the parts of DC across the Anacostia River?

[Anonymous]

Somebody asked earlier. What is the ideal population for Washington DC? Right now it is 705,749.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somebody asked earlier. What is the ideal population for Washington DC? Right now it is 705,749.

Probably nobody answered because there's no good answer to the question, because it's like asking, "What is the ideal number of tulips for the National Arboretum?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

Because, as Willy Sutton infamously said about banks, that’s where the money is. For developers, that’s where they can get the highest prices. The Office of Planning calls them “high opportunity zones” (for developers). For the mayor, it’s a political plus. She can reward her cronies and contributors lavishly by also playing on the old DC politics of resentment and grievance — that west of the park needs to meet its “fair burden” to have more density and by suggesting that lots of new construction there will prevent gentrification in NE and SE.