Why is "growth" good? I'd like fewer people in the area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP.

+1

Where are you from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP.

+1

Where are you from?

I'm the first poster. We live in Silver Spring and I grew up here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

Without en suite bathrooms or a kitchen. Lets see how this plan works out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

So no doubt you opposed that proposal and instead advocated for the parking to come from the under utilized parking garage in Cathedral Commons?

In either case community gardens serve a pretty small number of people - only a tennis court would likely be used by fewer people.

They gave you an example of green space being paved over as asked. Green space serves everyone... because its green. You know how clean air works, right....?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

So no doubt you opposed that proposal and instead advocated for the parking to come from the under utilized parking garage in Cathedral Commons?

In either case community gardens serve a pretty small number of people - only a tennis court would likely be used by fewer people.

They gave you an example of green space being paved over as asked. Green space serves everyone... because its green. You know how clean air works, right....?

DP

It's not just the paving over of green space (which has been happening all over MoCo).

But, it's the fact that developers come in and put up tons of high density housing, but aren't required to set aside a little bit of space for a park when they do so. So, you're bringing in thousands of new residents, without setting aside any green space in conjunction with that development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP

It's not just the paving over of green space (which has been happening all over MoCo).

But, it's the fact that developers come in and put up tons of high density housing, but aren't required to set aside a little bit of space for a park when they do so. So, you're bringing in thousands of new residents, without setting aside any green space in conjunction with that development.

It's not high-density housing, even though people who oppose it like to refer to it as high-density housing.

And actually they very often are required to dedicate open space.

[Anonymous]

If you ever look at old movies from the 50s doeant the traffic in cities look lovely? In general what is the take on where the population in the US is right now?Cities like DC do seem so congested.

[Anonymous]

Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you ever look at old movies from the 50s doeant the traffic in cities look lovely? In general what is the take on where the population in the US is right now?Cities like DC do seem so congested.

No. By the 1950s, people were already knocking down city buildings for surface parking lots.

But if you think it looks lovely, then (1) you're going to have to persuade a whole lot of people to get rid of some of their cars and drive the remaining ones a lot less and (2) you're also going to have to restore mass transit. There were still streetcars in the 1950s.

In 1950, there was about 1 vehicle per household, about 3,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about 7,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 22% of households owned no vehicles, and 2.5% owned 3 or more vehicles.

In 2017, there were about 2 vehicles per household, about 10,000 annual vehicle miles per capita, and about about 14,300 annual vehicle miles per licensed driver. 9% of households owned no vehicles, and 22% owned 3 or more vehicles.

Also: the population of DC in 1950 was 802,178. It's now 633,427.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

From what you say, I think it's quite likely that while you might support smart growth in principle, you actually oppose any actual smart-growth projects in your area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

“Smart growth” has become a buzz phrase. Only a dumb developer would not call his project smart growth.

[Anonymous]

Capitalism, OP, pure and simple. People aim for eternal economic growth as if that’s possible without destroying the planet or humanity. Consume more, work more, produce more, like this is just accepted as good. But it’s obviously not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

“Smart growth” has become a buzz phrase. Only a dumb developer would not call his project smart growth.

I agree with this. I understand the need for growth, but "smart growth" policies are all growth with little "smart."

I'm not sure how we change this, the entire idea of smart growth is to create dense, livable communities where everyone lives a walkable distance from where they work, go to school, and play. Living near your work is virtually impossible for any dual earner household, and school planning has not been coordinated with development so that "smart growth" policies actually increase reliance on automobiles. The preference for higher density development in walkable communities makes no sense if townhomes and apartments are constructed and filled with residents who have 2-3 cars per household and no ability to walk to any school, shopping center, or place of employment. Very little green space has been preserved in walkable distance to new development. I'll take the burden of new growth if it comes with some benefit, but that's not what is happening. Current policies promote sprawl; they do not contain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

“Smart growth” has become a buzz phrase. Only a dumb developer would not call his project smart growth.

I agree with this. I understand the need for growth, but "smart growth" policies are all growth with little "smart."

I'm not sure how we change this, the entire idea of smart growth is to create dense, livable communities where everyone lives a walkable distance from where they work, go to school, and play. Living near your work is virtually impossible for any dual earner household, and school planning has not been coordinated with development so that "smart growth" policies actually increase reliance on automobiles. The preference for higher density development in walkable communities makes no sense if townhomes and apartments are constructed and filled with residents who have 2-3 cars per household and no ability to walk to any school, shopping center, or place of employment. Very little green space has been preserved in walkable distance to new development. I'll take the burden of new growth if it comes with some benefit, but that's not what is happening. Current policies promote sprawl; they do not contain it.

No, it's not. The entire idea of smart growth is to put growth near things that are already there, instead of far away from things that are already there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team OP!

However, I would not be opposed to growth if it actually was smart growth. If there was enough green space for all, and by that I mean parks where kids can play, and I don't mean the small pocket parks for adults to hang out in. And if the infrastructure, and by that I'm talking about the traffic and the schools, could keep up with what they're building. It does not.

“Smart growth” has become a buzz phrase. Only a dumb developer would not call his project smart growth.

I agree with this. I understand the need for growth, but "smart growth" policies are all growth with little "smart."

I'm not sure how we change this, the entire idea of smart growth is to create dense, livable communities where everyone lives a walkable distance from where they work, go to school, and play. Living near your work is virtually impossible for any dual earner household, and school planning has not been coordinated with development so that "smart growth" policies actually increase reliance on automobiles. The preference for higher density development in walkable communities makes no sense if townhomes and apartments are constructed and filled with residents who have 2-3 cars per household and no ability to walk to any school, shopping center, or place of employment. Very little green space has been preserved in walkable distance to new development. I'll take the burden of new growth if it comes with some benefit, but that's not what is happening. Current policies promote sprawl; they do not contain it.

No, it's not. The entire idea of smart growth is to put growth near things that are already there, instead of far away from things that are already there.

Well, perhaps that's the disconnect. Maybe you are right about the original idea, but that's not how it has played out. Every close in suburban project is authorized under "smart growth" policies, which means that building is allowed where there are roads and sewer infrastructure, but that's about it.