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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

You’re confusing basic math with epidemiology. 1M is a lot worse than 50. Even my 5-year old understands that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks pretty good to me know in Singapore and Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Helps to have a functional government though.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

You’re confusing basic math with epidemiology. 1M is a lot worse than 50. Even my 5-year old understands that.

I think there are two anti-density arguments happening. One has to do with the viral spread, and that will get proven/disproven by scientists. The other has to do with quality of life. What am I more limited from doing in a dense area, how many extra precautions do I have to take, how easy or difficult is it to get resources? Most of us sequestering in our homes in less-dense neighborhoods are thankful for space, light, room to take a walk, a yard. Those are providing for a high quality of life in this situation. They are also things we generally value over "hustle bustle"

Any future density is not something we want to ramrod in, without considering the impact on quality of life.

Additionally, any future density will have to take viral spread into consideration in its design features. The new ward 3 family shelter with shared bathrooms and kitchens seems like a bad joke in the quarantine age. Self-cleaning toilets, handrails, doorknobs and elevators are going to be a must. We might have to go to one way lanes on sidewalks with any additional building, and all kinds of other features. Cars don't seem so bad now, as they allow you to travel by yourself. So parking. Or, public transport with individual, self cleaning pods to ride in. Let's see if the developers want to pony up for those features?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks pretty good to me know in Singapore and Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Helps to have a functional government though.

This!

What? You have not been following the news. Singapore has had a huge bounce back infection rate. The 'rose is off the bloom' for the Singapore solution. It turns out, controlling an epidemic is easy when you kick the entire working class out of your country.

"Chan said officials could have moved people out of the housing earlier, but he doesn't think it would have made a difference in transmission. He pointed out that Singapore, with a population of 5.7 million people, is an extremely dense city, "and dense cities have a problem dealing with epidemics, with pandemics."

Chan Heng Chee, Singapore's ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told CNBC on Friday that the country "knew that the foreign workers would be a stress point" in its fight against the global pandemic.

Singapore reported about 1,000 cases of COVID-19 at the start of the month, but that number has skyrocketed. Health officials now report more than 12,075 cases of the virus and 12 deaths. While Friday's new case count is high, it is the first time Singapore has reported fewer than 1,000 new daily cases in about a week.

Be careful taking old talking points and recycling them into your weird densification arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

You’re confusing basic math with epidemiology. 1M is a lot worse than 50. Even my 5-year old understands that.

I think there are two anti-density arguments happening. One has to do with the viral spread, and that will get proven/disproven by scientists. The other has to do with quality of life. What am I more limited from doing in a dense area, how many extra precautions do I have to take, how easy or difficult is it to get resources? Most of us sequestering in our homes in less-dense neighborhoods are thankful for space, light, room to take a walk, a yard. Those are providing for a high quality of life in this situation. They are also things we generally value over "hustle bustle"

Any future density is not something we want to ramrod in, without considering the impact on quality of life.

Additionally, any future density will have to take viral spread into consideration in its design features. The new ward 3 family shelter with shared bathrooms and kitchens seems like a bad joke in the quarantine age. Self-cleaning toilets, handrails, doorknobs and elevators are going to be a must. We might have to go to one way lanes on sidewalks with any additional building, and all kinds of other features. Cars don't seem so bad now, as they allow you to travel by yourself. So parking. Or, public transport with individual, self cleaning pods to ride in. Let's see if the developers want to pony up for those features?

Ha! Developers don’t even want to put for off street parking any more, claiming that everyone will take transit and lower costs to the developer will be passed along to renters and purchasers. But there’s no evidence that cost savings accrue to the new residents as opposed to simply fattening the developer’s margins. And, to trust but verify the assertion that residents will not have cars, when develops are asked to include covenant in leases and deeds that residents will not be eligible for street parking permits, the developers won’t commit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

You’re confusing basic math with epidemiology. 1M is a lot worse than 50. Even my 5-year old understands that.

I think there are two anti-density arguments happening. One has to do with the viral spread, and that will get proven/disproven by scientists. The other has to do with quality of life. What am I more limited from doing in a dense area, how many extra precautions do I have to take, how easy or difficult is it to get resources? Most of us sequestering in our homes in less-dense neighborhoods are thankful for space, light, room to take a walk, a yard. Those are providing for a high quality of life in this situation. They are also things we generally value over "hustle bustle"

Any future density is not something we want to ramrod in, without considering the impact on quality of life.

Additionally, any future density will have to take viral spread into consideration in its design features. The new ward 3 family shelter with shared bathrooms and kitchens seems like a bad joke in the quarantine age. Self-cleaning toilets, handrails, doorknobs and elevators are going to be a must. We might have to go to one way lanes on sidewalks with any additional building, and all kinds of other features. Cars don't seem so bad now, as they allow you to travel by yourself. So parking. Or, public transport with individual, self cleaning pods to ride in. Let's see if the developers want to pony up for those features?

This is spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the New York Times:

“Density is really an enemy in a situation like this,” said Dr. Steven Goodman, an epidemiologist at Stanford University. “With large population centers, where people are interacting with more people all the time, that’s where it’s going to spread the fastest.”

The challenge facing New York and other tightly cramped cities around the United States can be seen by comparing the country’s largest city to its second biggest, Los Angeles.

As of Monday, there were more than 13,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in New York and about 500 in Los Angeles. New York reported 125 deaths; Los Angeles reported seven.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-crowds-density.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the New York Times:

“Density is really an enemy in a situation like this,” said Dr. Steven Goodman, an epidemiologist at Stanford University. “With large population centers, where people are interacting with more people all the time, that’s where it’s going to spread the fastest.”

The challenge facing New York and other tightly cramped cities around the United States can be seen by comparing the country’s largest city to its second biggest, Los Angeles.

As of Monday, there were more than 13,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in New York and about 500 in Los Angeles. New York reported 125 deaths; Los Angeles reported seven.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-crowds-density.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

+1

They just closed a side road and eliminated about 20 parking spots in Cleveland Park because people said that the pedestrian traffic on the existing sidewalk was too dense, that it was inadequate for pedestrians trying to maintain safe distance. The commercial strip in the Cleveland Park Historic District is largely comprised of low-scale one and two story buildings. Now imagine the challenge if these are replaced by dense 13 story buildings, as the mayor and her developer cronies propose.

[Anonymous]

Chan Heng Chee, Singapore's ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "and dense cities have a problem dealing with epidemics, with pandemics."

Dr. Steven Goodman, an epidemiologist at Stanford University: “Density is really an enemy in a situation like this, with large population centers, where people are interacting with more people all the time, that’s where it’s going to spread the fastest.”

Mayor Bowser: DC Comprehensive Plan and dense growth is DC's key to surviving future pandemics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chan Heng Chee, Singapore's ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "and dense cities have a problem dealing with epidemics, with pandemics."

Dr. Steven Goodman, an epidemiologist at Stanford University: “Density is really an enemy in a situation like this, with large population centers, where people are interacting with more people all the time, that’s where it’s going to spread the fastest.”

Mayor Bowser: DC Comprehensive Plan and dense growth is DC's key to surviving future pandemics.

Bowser is such a dimwit, except when it comes to the care and feeding of her developer cronies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a numerator, a denominator and a county-specific location and classification category (urban, suburban, township, rural, etc.). Then you can see the results. However, rates are also deceiving as the lower the denominator the easier mathematically to get a higher rate. I.e. if there are 100 people in a small town it is a lot easier to get a 50% rate (50 people) than in a city with 2,000,000 people (1M people).

If 50 people had confirmed covid in a town of 100 people, that wouldn't be a deceiving mathematical anomaly, it would be a public-health disaster.

You don't know how stats work. Don't worry. They are hard.

There's been an outbreak of armchair epidemiologists lately.

Like the outbreak of armchair “Urbanists”.... blogging from their momma’s basement.

You’re confusing basic math with epidemiology. 1M is a lot worse than 50. Even my 5-year old understands that.

I think there are two anti-density arguments happening. One has to do with the viral spread, and that will get proven/disproven by scientists. The other has to do with quality of life. What am I more limited from doing in a dense area, how many extra precautions do I have to take, how easy or difficult is it to get resources? Most of us sequestering in our homes in less-dense neighborhoods are thankful for space, light, room to take a walk, a yard. Those are providing for a high quality of life in this situation. They are also things we generally value over "hustle bustle"

Any future density is not something we want to ramrod in, without considering the impact on quality of life.

Additionally, any future density will have to take viral spread into consideration in its design features. The new ward 3 family shelter with shared bathrooms and kitchens seems like a bad joke in the quarantine age. Self-cleaning toilets, handrails, doorknobs and elevators are going to be a must. We might have to go to one way lanes on sidewalks with any additional building, and all kinds of other features. Cars don't seem so bad now, as they allow you to travel by yourself. So parking. Or, public transport with individual, self cleaning pods to ride in. Let's see if the developers want to pony up for those features?

So true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks pretty good to me know in Singapore and Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Helps to have a functional government though.

This!

What?? Are these two posters being sarcastic, or just willfully ignorant. Exemplary of people in the DC bubble, I guess.

You want to compare the US to Singapore, and laud Singapore for their handling of Covid? Do you have any idea what life is like for people in Singapore? I certainly hope you, nor anyone you care about is gay. You do realize that it's a criminal offense to be homosexual in Singapore, right? Singapore has an abysmal record for human rights, so unless you're willing to give that up, I wouldn't put Singapore up on a high pedestal.

I can't believe someone would come on here and claim that they'd prefer to living under the Singapore government, versus here in the US. Do people actually think this way? UGH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will always want "something better." I remember as a child when my family moved from a small apartment to the suburbs into a rental house. And, then to the purchase of a tiny little house and then a bigger house that had three bedrooms and two bathrooms (No den, just a living room.)

And, i think people will be looking to move "out" more after being confined with the Covid.

Now is the wrong time to push for high density housing.

The mayor and Trueblood asset that high density is exactly what is needed and “even more critical” now, the magic elixir:

An updated Comprehensive Plan is even more critical now, given the current disruptions that the COVID-19 pandemic is causing for the District’s residents and businesses,” said Mayor Bowser. “As we move from response to reopening and recovery, this Comprehensive Plan will serve as an essential guide to ensure that the District not only recovers, but emerges stronger, healthier, more resilient, and more equitable than ever.”

I would be very interested to read any updated provisions that the mayor has added recently to the proposed Comp Plan amendments to respond specifically to the pandemic and the aftermath and to strengthen public health and resiliency. She says it, but I can’t find any substantive differences from the amendments and UP-FLUM map that the Office of Planning was pushing last fall.

Crickets.

Still Crickets.

Could it be that the mayor and OP are rather obviously trying to sell bullshit?