Rock Creek Park needs to be developed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

[Anonymous]

DC has a jurisdiction with cheaper real estate just over the District line, called PG County. Economically it makes sense on a regional level that PG should a sort more affordable housing where it’s cheaper to acquire sites than in the city. The District shouldn’t bear most of the burden for the Washington region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You developers are so ridiculously transparent.

This sounds like an idea hatched by Mr Ward and his Cleveland Park Trump Growth lobby group!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Actually, it should be Ward 4. There is tons of greenfield, grade level land at Oregon and Military Rd that should be given way to housing for everyone instead of being set aside as unused grass fields by no one.

You could spend a decade converting unattached houses in Ward 3 to 4-plexes or whatever and it would not come close to matching that thousands of housing units that can be built at that location.

It would take you more than a decade (perhaps a decade of decades) to get that land from NPS. Better put all your creativity into converting SFHs or building at the old RFK site. RCP? NGH.

You are comparing what you perceive to be a political obstacle and making a w.a.g. based on that, from a basic and very real reality of the physical world.

In my estimation, I believe that Congress and the Administration has turned the corner on understanding the depth of our country’s housing crisis and are willing to take action commensurate with the crisis that we face. If you don’t ask for something, you won’t get it. We just need an organized front and this will be a reality a lot sooner than you can understand.

If you are not on board and keep fighting real opportunities to make a difference to deliver affordable housing and more sustainable and climate resilient communities, then it sounds like you are a NIMBY.

Oh, you make me laugh and laugh.

NPS will not do this and you can talk about it till the cows come home and graze on the Mall again. This is not a perceived obstacle. It is a very real one - which you would understand had any experience dealing with NPS wrt federal land in DC.

Paving greenfield in RCP is not climate friendly. It would be developer friendly.

Oh and BTW, I really don’t care if you think I’m a NIMBY. So so right ahead.

So funny!

“Paving greenfield”? You think creating thousands of much needed housing units on an unused plot of land is “paving greenfield” and nothing more? Says a lot about your priorities. You definitely are a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

DC could sell the Van Ness UDC site for housing and move the college to Southeast to be closer to more of its student body. Mayor Williams suggested exactly that 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

The prices would tell you otherwise.

DC has more sqft parkland per person than almost any city in America. The idea that it should be off limits to talk about how to better utilize this land to make housing more affordable is baffling.

NP and I also don’t think there is a lack of housing in DC. There is a lack of housing that MC families want- which are flipped free standing houses with backyards. There are tons of new construction going on in Navy Yard, NOMA, lots of underdeveloped land on St. Elizabeth’s Campus, lots of empty office and former retail buildings, etc. People just want specific things and therefore pay 850,000 for a flipped 3 bedroom rowhouse in Brightwood.

If families cannot afford to live in the city within reasonable proximity to jobs, then what kind of city is that?

DC should be a city for everyone, including working families. And putting a limited amount of housing on the abundant parkland may be an opportunity to make the city more liveable for everyone.

Should Pacific Palisades or Potomac be for everyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

It would be better to tear down all the SFH housing in NW and turn them into rowhouses.

Honestly, why don't we do this? DC is iconic for the rowhouses, not single family detached homes (with the exception of the white house). This would solve so many problems at once

This is why no one wants to buy SFHs in AU Park, Spring Valley, Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park, etc. Raze them for vibrant dense mixed-use!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

But right next to a park. That you want to pave over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

But right next to a park. That you want to pave over.

Rick Creek Park is the green lung for much of the District. We already have lots of generic, upscale, dense mixed-use “Residences at Vibrant Commons” on top of a Five Guys -without having to develop Rock Creek Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

DC could sell the Van Ness UDC site for housing and move the college to Southeast to be closer to more of its student body. Mayor Williams suggested exactly that 20 years ago.

Ding ding ding! That parcel should be redeveloped as you say, but never will be and will remain a ghost town for decades because of ... reasons. UDC only has life when DCPS schools get a tiny sliver for swing space. Otherwise it's a millstone on development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC population is 689k. The highest population was 802k. Still got a lot of housing stock unused.

That peak DC population was wartime, when just about every bedroom in the city was rented out. Basically every rowhouse was a boarding house. We're never seeing that again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

But right next to a park. That you want to pave over.

Rick Creek Park is the green lung for much of the District. We already have lots of generic, upscale, dense mixed-use “Residences at Vibrant Commons” on top of a Five Guys -without having to develop Rock Creek Park.

What does that even mean? The park is essentially a canal for the collection of storm water runoff. Very important, but lets not pretend that it is somehow important habitat. In addition, one grassy field does not serve any important function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

But right next to a park. That you want to pave over.

Rick Creek Park is the green lung for much of the District. We already have lots of generic, upscale, dense mixed-use “Residences at Vibrant Commons” on top of a Five Guys -without having to develop Rock Creek Park.

What does that even mean? The park is essentially a canal for the collection of storm water runoff. Very important, but lets not pretend that it is somehow important habitat. In addition, one grassy field does not serve any important function.

It actually provides great tree canopy which lowers the temperature in the area on hot
Days. Lots of groups looking to put more parkland in SE DC which is sorely lacking tree canopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny- my husband and I were just talking about how that'd be a great place for a shopping mall! Or a Walmart!

It’s an absolutely ideal location for development and should be used to create more dense, walkable housing in the city, ideally located adjacent to one of the most beautiful parks in the country..

Wait, didn’t you say you want to pave the park? Oh, only the parts you want to make money developing?

Dense, mixed use, walkable development enhances communities. It’s a great location for it.

But right next to a park. That you want to pave over.

Rick Creek Park is the green lung for much of the District. We already have lots of generic, upscale, dense mixed-use “Residences at Vibrant Commons” on top of a Five Guys -without having to develop Rock Creek Park.

What does that even mean? The park is essentially a canal for the collection of storm water runoff. Very important, but lets not pretend that it is somehow important habitat. In addition, one grassy field does not serve any important function.

It actually provides great tree canopy which lowers the temperature in the area on hot
Days. Lots of groups looking to put more parkland in SE DC which is sorely lacking tree canopy.

Excellent point. There are no trees on the grassy field on Military at Oregon. So no excuse not to build on it then.