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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to live in an extremely dense city, you can move. No one is stopping you. Go to New York City. Go to Tokyo. Go to Mumbai.

The rest of us like DC how it is. There's a ton of people here but it's a rare big city that is actually livable and -- gasp! -- pretty.

I don't want to live in a glorified college dorm, living cheek to jowl with my neighbors. Have you been to NYC? It sucks. I mean, nice to visit and all but who wants to live like that? No, thank you.

Nobody is talking about making you live in a dorm.

Nobody is talking about making DC like Mumbai.

And if people didn't want to live in the kind of housing you don't like, the builders wouldn't build it.

Builders can always sell or rent something at a price, although that price may be less than the developer’s business model. But the point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don’t want to see them transformed into someplace where they lose much of their character, those qualities that makes those neighborhoods unique, attractive places to live and raise a family. Why do these successful, stable neighborhoods all have to become generic mixed-use fast casual taller denser sameness ?

[Anonymous]

Look, this is about money. Density is simply a mechanism, a tool.

Remember this started years ago with ADU's (accessory Dwelling Units). They are a 'matter of right' addition now. Any home owner can build one. The smart density crowd cheered. Then applications rolled in and then they stalled.

They were built for a year or so and then through a combination of bad policy and expense, they have really trickled to a few permits being issued a year.

The irony is that while you have the right to build an ADU, in DC that does not give you the right to rent that ADU. There is an entirely separate, expensive, timely process to get your brand new ADU which just had to be built to code, now certified that it meets code and a subsequent business license issued.

Notice that all of these steps require money being transferred to the city government. There is not a program, that I know of, where the city is offering to cover ADU construction and permitting costs for a right to collect rent or use as voucher housing.

While this would not be a solution, the fact that it has not been explored illustrates that the issue is not 'affordable' housing as the density crowd loves to throw around, it is efficient money transfer from those they perceive as having it to the gate holders of these new real estate bids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to live in an extremely dense city, you can move. No one is stopping you. Go to New York City. Go to Tokyo. Go to Mumbai.

The rest of us like DC how it is. There's a ton of people here but it's a rare big city that is actually livable and -- gasp! -- pretty.

I don't want to live in a glorified college dorm, living cheek to jowl with my neighbors. Have you been to NYC? It sucks. I mean, nice to visit and all but who wants to live like that? No, thank you.

Nobody is talking about making you live in a dorm.

Nobody is talking about making DC like Mumbai.

And if people didn't want to live in the kind of housing you don't like, the builders wouldn't build it.

Builders can always sell or rent something at a price, although that price may be less than the developer’s business model. But the point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don’t want to see them transformed into someplace where they lose much of their character, those qualities that makes those neighborhoods unique, attractive places to live and raise a family. Why do these successful, stable neighborhoods all have to become generic mixed-use fast casual taller denser sameness ?

The point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don't want more people living in them.

I'm also amazed at how these dreadful, destructive taller buildings can be

1. Only there to make money for builders
2. Only for people with a lot of money
3. Things nobody wants
4. Half-vacant

all at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to live in an extremely dense city, you can move. No one is stopping you. Go to New York City. Go to Tokyo. Go to Mumbai.

The rest of us like DC how it is. There's a ton of people here but it's a rare big city that is actually livable and -- gasp! -- pretty.

I don't want to live in a glorified college dorm, living cheek to jowl with my neighbors. Have you been to NYC? It sucks. I mean, nice to visit and all but who wants to live like that? No, thank you.

Nobody is talking about making you live in a dorm.

Nobody is talking about making DC like Mumbai.

And if people didn't want to live in the kind of housing you don't like, the builders wouldn't build it.

Builders can always sell or rent something at a price, although that price may be less than the developer’s business model. But the point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don’t want to see them transformed into someplace where they lose much of their character, those qualities that makes those neighborhoods unique, attractive places to live and raise a family. Why do these successful, stable neighborhoods all have to become generic mixed-use fast casual taller denser sameness ?

The point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don't want more people living in them.

I'm also amazed at how these dreadful, destructive taller buildings can be

1. Only there to make money for builders
2. Only for people with a lot of money
3. Things nobody wants
4. Half-vacant

all at the same time.

Maybe these neighborhoods are so livable because they don’t have downtown zoning and density. But when you change FLUM and zoning to permit up to 13 story buildings with no set-backs in previously lower scale and and lower density neighborhoods, that’s what you get: downtown height and density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to live in an extremely dense city, you can move. No one is stopping you. Go to New York City. Go to Tokyo. Go to Mumbai.

The rest of us like DC how it is. There's a ton of people here but it's a rare big city that is actually livable and -- gasp! -- pretty.

I don't want to live in a glorified college dorm, living cheek to jowl with my neighbors. Have you been to NYC? It sucks. I mean, nice to visit and all but who wants to live like that? No, thank you.

Nobody is talking about making you live in a dorm.

Nobody is talking about making DC like Mumbai.

And if people didn't want to live in the kind of housing you don't like, the builders wouldn't build it.

Builders can always sell or rent something at a price, although that price may be less than the developer’s business model. But the point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don’t want to see them transformed into someplace where they lose much of their character, those qualities that makes those neighborhoods unique, attractive places to live and raise a family. Why do these successful, stable neighborhoods all have to become generic mixed-use fast casual taller denser sameness ?

The point is, the people who live in these very livable neighborhoods don't want more people living in them.

I'm also amazed at how these dreadful, destructive taller buildings can be

1. Only there to make money for builders
2. Only for people with a lot of money
3. Things nobody wants
4. Half-vacant

all at the same time.

Maybe these neighborhoods are so livable because they don’t have downtown zoning and density. But when you change FLUM and zoning to permit up to 13 story buildings with no set-backs in previously lower scale and and lower density neighborhoods, that’s what you get: downtown height and density.

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

Eh. Your question is: Why should the city allow the building of housing that people want, in locations where people want it? It's an easy question to answer. You just don't like the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

Eh. Your question is: Why should the city allow the building of housing that people want, in locations where people want it? It's an easy question to answer. You just don't like the answer.

No, as somebody mentioned earlier this is all about the money. You can turn of phrase all you would like, the question has not been answered. This is about money and if you cannot see that, you are not living in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

Eh. Your question is: Why should the city allow the building of housing that people want, in locations where people want it? It's an easy question to answer. You just don't like the answer.

No, as somebody mentioned earlier this is all about the money. You can turn of phrase all you would like, the question has not been answered. This is about money and if you cannot see that, you are not living in DC.

The answer to your question is that it's appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options. If people didn't want denser options there, then there wouldn't be any money in providing denser options there.

Now, you may disagree about the appropriateness. For example, you may believe that it is NOT appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options, if the current residents of those non-dense areas don't want them. But that's the answer.

[Anonymous]

The answer to your question is that it's appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options. If people didn't want denser options there, then there wouldn't be any money in providing denser options there.

Now, you may disagree about the appropriateness. For example, you may believe that it is NOT appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options, if the current residents of those non-dense areas don't want them. But that's the answer.

People buy houses where they are built (Urban planning). The character change comes gradually and later. If the mayor wants a denser Ward 3 and builds houses there. Of course people will buy them. If DC invested an ounce of concern and cash in Ward 8 they could have that area looking like Wharf.

No this is about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The answer to your question is that it's appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options. If people didn't want denser options there, then there wouldn't be any money in providing denser options there.

Now, you may disagree about the appropriateness. For example, you may believe that it is NOT appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options, if the current residents of those non-dense areas don't want them. But that's the answer.

People buy houses where they are built (Urban planning). The character change comes gradually and later. If the mayor wants a denser Ward 3 and builds houses there. Of course people will buy them. If DC invested an ounce of concern and cash in Ward 8 they could have that area looking like Wharf.

No this is about money.

That's not how the real estate market works, PP. Speaking of money. It's also not how urban planning works.

People want to live in multi-family housing in Ward 3 and are willing to pay for it. That's where that money you're talking about comes from. Builders have no interest in building housing that they will lose money on because nobody wants to live in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

Eh. Your question is: Why should the city allow the building of housing that people want, in locations where people want it? It's an easy question to answer. You just don't like the answer.

No, as somebody mentioned earlier this is all about the money. You can turn of phrase all you would like, the question has not been answered. This is about money and if you cannot see that, you are not living in DC.

The answer to your question is that it's appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options. If people didn't want denser options there, then there wouldn't be any money in providing denser options there.

Now, you may disagree about the appropriateness. For example, you may believe that it is NOT appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options, if the current residents of those non-dense areas don't want them. But that's the answer.

What about historic districts ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From reading DCUM, you'd think that the only two possibilities for a city are:

1. Cleveland Park
2. Midtown Manhattan

This is so maddening. Of course there are other options. DC has those other options. If you want to move into a unit into any option in DC, there is space available for you right now. Why do we need more of the denser options in the non dense areas is the question that none of the densification people can answer. Would it cost more to make Ward 1 more dense? You bet, but it is possible and it the people that live there have already demonstrated that they like the density.

I find it hilarious that the densifiers are aghast that Ward 3 does not want to be more dense. That is why those people chose to live there. They invested their housing dollar in DC, but the less dense flavor. Why would you expect them to cheerlead the death of the very thing they deliberately chose to avoid. The people buying in CP today could have spent their housing dollar in Adams Morgan had they wanted to.

Eh. Your question is: Why should the city allow the building of housing that people want, in locations where people want it? It's an easy question to answer. You just don't like the answer.

No, as somebody mentioned earlier this is all about the money. You can turn of phrase all you would like, the question has not been answered. This is about money and if you cannot see that, you are not living in DC.

The answer to your question is that it's appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options. If people didn't want denser options there, then there wouldn't be any money in providing denser options there.

Now, you may disagree about the appropriateness. For example, you may believe that it is NOT appropriate to build denser options in non-dense areas where people want denser options, if the current residents of those non-dense areas don't want them. But that's the answer.

What about historic districts ?

Well.exactly. isnt the mayor trying to "emergency legislate" changes to all kinds of current codes to get this ward 3 density? Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What about historic districts ?

What about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about historic districts ?

What about them?

Aren’t historic districts protected from what the mayor is proposing? If they are mostly comprised of two story buildings, how would a 12 story building under new zoning meet the compatibility test?