Rock Creek Park needs to be developed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

This is a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

OP has to be a troll. No one is this stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

If anything, OP is trolling people who want to change zoning to make more affordable housing in parts of D.C. that aren't national parks, by making a ludicrous suggestion as if turning Rock Creek Park into housing were the only option for increasing affordable housing (other than, say, raising the height limit on buildings, allowing for small apartment buildings in single-family-housing-zoned neighborhoods near transit, actually investing city money into building high-quality public housing, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Honestly why pave over a park when the city literally has empty land or barely used industrial space and plenty of pavement around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly why pave over a park when the city literally has empty land or barely used industrial space and plenty of pavement around?

Brown field properties are not as profitable for developers.

[Anonymous]

Paving over RCP is nuts. It's important for the watershed, and those trees are important for the local climate. There's plenty of land that could be developed or zoned to permit more MFH that wouldn't have the negative environmental impact of damaging RCP. Green space is one of the things that makes cities livable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

If anything, OP is trolling people who want to change zoning to make more affordable housing in parts of D.C. that aren't national parks, by making a ludicrous suggestion as if turning Rock Creek Park into housing were the only option for increasing affordable housing (other than, say, raising the height limit on buildings, allowing for small apartment buildings in single-family-housing-zoned neighborhoods near transit, actually investing city money into building high-quality public housing, etc.).

I am fairly confident that there is property in Wards 7 and 8 that can be developed. The entire debate in DC on housing and development focuses excessively on Ward 3. Ward 3 is not getting bigger any time soon. There are plenty of space in DC for development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

We don’t. Take a look at what is being built off of North Capital and K. Tons of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Why? Wouldn’t you want to be closer to downtown and save on commuting costs to your work? Be closer to the monuments and river and restaurants? Why just that Ward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Why? Wouldn’t you want to be closer to downtown and save on commuting costs to your work? Be closer to the monuments and river and restaurants? Why just that Ward?

Because developers want to make money and there’s money to be made in W3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

If anything, OP is trolling people who want to change zoning to make more affordable housing in parts of D.C. that aren't national parks, by making a ludicrous suggestion as if turning Rock Creek Park into housing were the only option for increasing affordable housing (other than, say, raising the height limit on buildings, allowing for small apartment buildings in single-family-housing-zoned neighborhoods near transit, actually investing city money into building high-quality public housing, etc.).

I am fairly confident that there is property in Wards 7 and 8 that can be developed. The entire debate in DC on housing and development focuses excessively on Ward 3. Ward 3 is not getting bigger any time soon. There are plenty of space in DC for development.

That is true, but I didn’t say anything above about Ward 3. You certainly could do all of what I suggested there, but you could also raise the height limit and allow apartments in SFH-zoned areas in Ward 7 and Ward 8, parts of each of which are also well served by transit. I’d prefer starting in Ward 3, since I live in Ward 3 and am more comfortable proposing big changes for my own neighborhood than for someone else’s, but at any rate, my main point here — that OP is trolling people who might agree with GGW, rather than being a pro-GGW troll, stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Why? Wouldn’t you want to be closer to downtown and save on commuting costs to your work? Be closer to the monuments and river and restaurants? Why just that Ward?

Because developers want to make money and there’s money to be made in W3.

That is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go away, GGWash trollbag

The OP isn't a GGWash "trollbag." I'm a GGWash trollbag--the city should be building tons of multi-unit apartments in Ward 3 instead of concentrating it in NoMa and SW/Near SE.

Why? Wouldn’t you want to be closer to downtown and save on commuting costs to your work? Be closer to the monuments and river and restaurants? Why just that Ward?

Because developers want to make money and there’s money to be made in W3.

If you take just one Ward 3 neighborhood, for example, Cleveland Park/North Cleveland Park, there are about 2000 units that are newly-built or under construction. That’s in one part of Ward 3. The notion that there is no multi-unit construction in the ward is a load of horse hooey.

[Anonymous]

I'm leaving DC because it's about to become outer borough Queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC population is 689k. The highest population was 802k. Still got a lot of housing stock unused.

True, but remember that most of SW that's currently office buildings was tenements back than.