Any momentum to preserve open space?

[Anonymous]

A town near me (not in the DMV) vote to buy a huge farm that was going to be sold to Toll Brothers. It will be preserved as green space instead.

[Anonymous]

Gotta note that the City of Richmond is buying Mayo Island, which straddles the James River. Land is currently home to a few dumpy businesses and a large parking lot. The current owners wanted to sell to a developer, but the city is committed to making it open space and linking it to an already impressive amount of green space along both banks of the river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

Aside from putting Audi Field within a 12-minute walk from a Metro station. There already is parking on the outskirts of town (at suburban Metro stations) and there already are shuttles to Audi Field (the Metro). No need to require Audi Field to do anything.

Audi Field still needs to be made responsible for all of the horrific traffic congestion their events cause. They should have to pay for robust traffic control and should be engaging in a robust communications campaign encouraging people to take mass transit instead of driving. Maybe increase the cost of parking and doing things like standing at the metro stop and handing out swag to the people who look like they are going to the game.

[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:Two questions:

1- Shouldnt property owners have a say in what their property is used for?

2- Land is millions of dollars per acre in DC, where is the $ going to come from to purchase property to build parks?

Nobody's talking about purchasing land to build parks, it's more about protecting the existing parks and green spaces. But if there's vacant undeveloped land that would make sense to turn into a park, then the city or a land trust should acquire it. Likewise, any new development should consider green space in their streetscapes. Green space makes cities more livable, helps reduce urban heat island effect, helps mitigate runoff and has a whole host of other benefits, which is why it needs to be balanced vs only thinking about density.

Guess who advocates for adding climate/stormwater mitigation & green features to streetscapes? The same people who advocate for more housing in cities.

You might like to think that's the case but you should pay a little closer attention, because I've seen over and over again how GGWash and others will superficially talk a good story about it but then are the first to sacrifice it and maximize building footprint and building height at the expense of any green space.

Entirely false.

Signed,
DC Smart Growth Advocate.

The other huge issue is that they have only pushed for more housing density, paying absolutely zero attention to the increased pressures it puts on infrastructure, services, traffic et cetera. As an example, Navy Yard and other areas around the city - the investments in non-housing infrastructure and services to support the housing has not been adequate.

Such as? "Traffic et cetera"? Not enough parking?

Like, EVERYTHING. Parking has gotten worse, yes. But there's also been no increase to police and emergency services or much of anything else. And like, have you tried going to Audi Field when there's a big international match going on? Prepare to just sit stopped in traffic for an hour, with zero traffic control going on.

Cities aren’t meant for cars.

Maybe the city should have required Audi Field to put in parking at the outskirts of town and run shuttles. There are probably many other potential solutions as well - but the point is, it seems like the city barely did anything at all to deal with the issue and continues to not address the impact, even as this push for higher and higher density continues.

Aside from putting Audi Field within a 12-minute walk from a Metro station. There already is parking on the outskirts of town (at suburban Metro stations) and there already are shuttles to Audi Field (the Metro). No need to require Audi Field to do anything.

Audi Field still needs to be made responsible for all of the horrific traffic congestion their events cause. They should have to pay for robust traffic control and should be engaging in a robust communications campaign encouraging people to take mass transit instead of driving. Maybe increase the cost of parking and doing things like standing at the metro stop and handing out swag to the people who look like they are going to the game.

At which parking lots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are giant houses popping up everywhere on green space. So many farms being turned into housing developments. It’s so sad.

Maybe you should start a group that will create more parks.

Why can’t we just have grassy open fields?

B/c grassy open fields don't generate income for the county or potential income for developers.

You and I see nature preserve, shady trees, quiet, etc. The county, however, sees t as potential property taxes from homes and developers see dollar signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are giant houses popping up everywhere on green space. So many farms being turned into housing developments. It’s so sad.

Maybe you should start a group that will create more parks.

Why can’t we just have grassy open fields?

B/c grassy open fields don't generate income for the county or potential income for developers.

You and I see nature preserve, shady trees, quiet, etc. The county, however, sees t as potential property taxes from homes and developers see dollar signs.

Which "grassy open fields" in which county are you referring to? Keeping in mind that grassy open fields are not a nature preserve in Maryland, except in some exceptional areas like the serpentine barrens at Soldiers Delight, and also don't have shady trees. Or perhaps you're referring to farmland?

[Anonymous]

Tear down some SFHs and replace them with a building on park.