Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

In Cleveland Park we call our neighborhood “the village in the city.” And we want to keep that green, walkable community character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a bunch of posters recently lament DC not being a "real city" because we don't have tall buildings or density?

These are some of the same folks who are insecure about the “height” of their penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there come recent news from her on this?

Yes, see link above. Shes renewing her "push". Basically , wrapping it un her affordable housing smoke and mirrors.

Bowser acts like a ho for her developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/05/10/bowser-ready-to-explore-d-c-height-limit-changes.html

Read and weep.

A. That article has no quotes indicating she is proposing raising the height limit. Rather she wants office of planinng to explore many options - which can certainly include upzonings - there are many parts of DC where regular zoning (floor area ratio limits, etc) are binding, the district wide height limit does not matter.

B. Before addressing the height limit, the office of planning would need to do a build out analysis, to determine who much building can still occur without altering the height limit. They did one back in 2012, the last time this came up. However critics said the analysis was not thorough enough, and in particular, IIRC, did not fully explore all potential upzonings.

C. That said, there are plenty of places where buildings above the current height limit would not materially change the look of the historic parts of DC. For one, you could raise it in areas near the MoCo line, where there are already taller buildings nearby on the Md side of the line. Or you could allow taller buildings in some place like L'Enfant Plaza, where I have difficulty seeing the harm.

I am no big fan of Bowser and like the current height limits, but I'd grudgingly be open to changing them once other options are exhausted. The middle class is being squeezed out, and we need increased density if we want to keep middle class families in the city. No bearing on me personally (we have good salaries), but I don't want DC to become a city of rich and poor only, with no middle class that includes [b]teachers, nurses, etc. Some of my child's teachers with families have had to commute from quite far away, and I'd prefer they have more options in the city.
[/b]

Please Google DC homebuyer assistance for first time homebuyers - specific programs are available for low income as well as ALL DC government workers including teachers and first responders. Personally know two teachers who have bought beautiful townhomes in transitional neighborhoods (ie they got a deal) and now their homes have appreciated .

Transitional neightborhoods end up, er, transitioned at some point. Which will happen faster after neighborhoods like Navy Yard and NoMa, which are absorbing a lot of the demand now, are built out.

The New York Avenue corridor ceremony isn’t built out.

But of course developers could get much higher margins if they could build tall in Georgetown and Logan Circle. That’s what this is all about, folks.

[Anonymous]

Certainly not ceremony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there come recent news from her on this?

Yes, see link above. Shes renewing her "push". Basically , wrapping it un her affordable housing smoke and mirrors.

Bowser acts like a ho for her developers.

Welcome to Chocolate City!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

1. I agree that a real build out analysis needs to reflect possible upzonings

2. But it needs to be politically realistic. "We will build mid rises in every neighborhood that is currently detached SFHs" is not politically realistic.

3. Raising the height act does not necessarily mean skyscrapers.

4. Each new building that is built AT the current height limit is a lost opportunity.

That's her vision. Read the article. She wants every ward to address affordable housing and the solution she suggests is high rises. Logic would infer, high rises for every ward.

[Anonymous]

If you care about the environment, you support density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skyscrapers surrounding national parks is generally a bad idea.

Really? Why exactly?

Would you rather those National Parks be bulldozed so they can be replaced with more 8-11 story mid rise office or residential buildings? Would that be a better outcome?

Or perhaps you'd like to expand the exurbs even more? Push even farther out into the countryside to make rooms for more houses so people can have 2 hour commutes to downtown? Yeah great idea!



Or, how about we build taller buildings, put more people in them, and then they don't need a car AT ALL.

Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings, and it's doing just fine. Our parks here will, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

In Cleveland Park we call our neighborhood “the village in the city.” And we want to keep that green, walkable community character.

Cleveland Park is a bunch of old, rude, grumpy white people. It’s not a village, but it did have a lot of idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

aesthetics poster. if people would obsess less about parking and wooden windows in the historic district and more about solutions, then I think we could have density that preserves public space amenities (including aesthetics).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skyscrapers surrounding national parks is generally a bad idea.

Really? Why exactly?

Would you rather those National Parks be bulldozed so they can be replaced with more 8-11 story mid rise office or residential buildings? Would that be a better outcome?

Or perhaps you'd like to expand the exurbs even more? Push even farther out into the countryside to make rooms for more houses so people can have 2 hour commutes to downtown? Yeah great idea!



Or, how about we build taller buildings, put more people in them, and then they don't need a car AT ALL.

Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings, and it's doing just fine. Our parks here will, too.

How about focusing on the public transport greenies love and building in the suburbs which could use a renewal/revival? There are a million programs and options for homebuying for DC government workers in this city, and tons of subsidies for low income. Do you realize that the current housing voucher is well above market value? Are there people on the waiting list? Sure. That will never be eradicated. DC doesnt have a special obligation to draw and house every low income person in the reinstate area. We dont have the infrastructure for that, or the taxpayer base. However, there are still plenty of areas to find affordable housing or build without going higher - Anacostia is lovely and the true suburb in the city. Have you ever visited? Rolling hills and bungalows. Maybe the hipsters should put their mt. Pleasant group homes there and bring in the coffee shops? Anyhow - its a tiny city with a tiny footprint. There is zero need for high rise in DC which is basically "the heart" of a massive tristate city. The surrounding suburbs dont have the same height rules, so go live there. Good thing Congress runs this city so Bowser has no hope. Viva Congress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skyscrapers surrounding national parks is generally a bad idea.

Really? Why exactly?

Would you rather those National Parks be bulldozed so they can be replaced with more 8-11 story mid rise office or residential buildings? Would that be a better outcome?

Or perhaps you'd like to expand the exurbs even more? Push even farther out into the countryside to make rooms for more houses so people can have 2 hour commutes to downtown? Yeah great idea!



Or, how about we build taller buildings, put more people in them, and then they don't need a car AT ALL.

Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings, and it's doing just fine. Our parks here will, too.

It's not just fine. The surrounding buildings have neighbors.fighting each othe over "sun rights". Theres not a tree in sight outside of the park. You really need to keep up.