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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was born in DC, raised in NOVA and I liked it the way it was! I hate it the way it is. No, I don't "got mine" either. I was priced out even of the crappy 70's colonial I grew up in. The close in pastoral neighborhood I dreamed of living in as an adult is long mowed under for McMansions on small lots. You can't drive through my hometown at any time of day - 20 minutes a mile - really? In one of "America's best places to live"?
Growth stinks!
We will move when we retire - but I don't know anywhere that is like what our old suburbs were. This area WAS an amazing place to grow up, my kids can't wait to graduate and get out.

+1

Hellish. My nieces and nephews are currently looking for full time jobs and each of them say how they can't wait to escape the bubble here (they were born and raised in the area). They don't feel it represents real life, and they have a point.

[Anonymous]

And there will be 20 people who will be more than happy to buy your house. So everyone will be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born in DC, raised in NOVA and I liked it the way it was! I hate it the way it is. No, I don't "got mine" either. I was priced out even of the crappy 70's colonial I grew up in. The close in pastoral neighborhood I dreamed of living in as an adult is long mowed under for McMansions on small lots. You can't drive through my hometown at any time of day - 20 minutes a mile - really? In one of "America's best places to live"?
Growth stinks!
We will move when we retire - but I don't know anywhere that is like what our old suburbs were. This area WAS an amazing place to grow up, my kids can't wait to graduate and get out.

+1

Hellish. My nieces and nephews are currently looking for full time jobs and each of them say how they can't wait to escape the bubble here (they were born and raised in the area). They don't feel it represents real life, and they have a point.

Nah. Life is as real here as it is anywhere else. Don't be fooled by beer and truck commercials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, yes. Smart growth policies encourage growth in close-in suburbs vs. farther-out suburbs, exurbs, or greenfields.

[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.

Agree completely!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep, this.

Lots of people are making lots and lots of money as a result of this development. Plain and simple. And that’s why it continues even if it’s not in the best interest of residents.

[Anonymous]

Personally would like to see more renovation rather than new development. Many beautiful old homes in MoCo. Why so many tear-downs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally would like to see more renovation rather than new development. Many beautiful old homes in MoCo. Why so many tear-downs?

Because people want new houses that are bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep, this.

Lots of people are making lots and lots of money as a result of this development. Plain and simple. And that’s why it continues even if it’s not in the best interest of residents.

It's in the best interests of all residents for the increasing population to have housing and for that housing to be located close in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally would like to see more renovation rather than new development. Many beautiful old homes in MoCo. Why so many tear-downs?

Because people want new houses that are bigger.

ITA

Historical zoning should happen in the whole region as quickly as possible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline[b]. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Which makes no sense.

Maybe the government can implement some programs to incentivize people to move to more depressed area. Even out the population a bit.

SO many people in the DC area could easily telework and do their jobs from anywhere in the country. Let them. Lots of Fed jobs can be done from elsewhere. Government would save money on facilities. People could move elsewhere. Win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline[b]. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Which makes no sense.

Maybe the government can implement some programs to incentivize people to move to more depressed area. Even out the population a bit.

SO many people in the DC area could easily telework and do their jobs from anywhere in the country. Let them. Lots of Fed jobs can be done from elsewhere. Government would save money on facilities. People could move elsewhere. Win-win.

So many people work in all the major cities. They should just nuke New York and Dallas and force everyone to move to "the cuontry" right?

[Anonymous]

The greater the pop. density the more transportation options need to be offered (bus, rail, taxi/uber, good walking paths/sidewalks, bike lanes). The increased density results in higher tax revenues and therefore more ability to fund these alternative options and spread the cost at a smaller share per taxed entity. A rural area (ex: Clark Co.), changes to a suburb (ex: Loudoun), changes to a set of town centers in a suburb (Ex: eastern Loudoun / western Fairfax), changes to a mini-city (ex: Tysons), changes to a city/exo-city (DC/Arlington/Alex/Bethesda/Silver Spring). The roads, but also the alt. forms of transportation also increase as this happens. "Smart" growth plans for this eventuality and leads the way, but not too far ahead (lest the budget collapses) and also throttles the rate of development to be manageable without "off-putting" those that can bring economic fortune to the jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline[b]. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Which makes no sense.

Maybe the government can implement some programs to incentivize people to move to more depressed area. Even out the population a bit.

SO many people in the DC area could easily telework and do their jobs from anywhere in the country. Let them. Lots of Fed jobs can be done from elsewhere. Government would save money on facilities. People could move elsewhere. Win-win.

So many people work in all the major cities. They should just nuke New York and Dallas and force everyone to move to "the cuontry" right?

?? You sound unhinged.

Often times, the government steps in and provides incentives for people to move to an economically depressed area. It's not unheard of.

[Anonymous]

Speaking for DC, would really appreciate it not getting dramatically more dense, higher etc. If there are areas that were already concrete and they want to build a moderate apt. Building ok, but not knocking down rowhouses etc. This is politicians making deals with their developer donors . Neither of whom are urban planners - the former wants power and the latter wants $.