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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forty percent of coronavirus deaths happen in nursing homes. Do you really think that number wouldn't be lower if those people didn't live in such close quarters?

Density kills.

56% of Covid positives in Fairfax County are Hispanic. It's been going up about 1% per day. Hispanics are less than 17% of the population in Fairfax County.

Tell me that density is not a big problem.

Deaths are in nursing homes.
Most other cases are coming from high density communities.

What is Fairfax County doing to educate the people in these communities other than feeding the kids? Are they handing out masks with food? Educating the families? Following the contacts to see if the spread is coming home to them from nursing home workers? My bet is on that more than construction workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that is shocking. Additionally, her aide Nesbitt cited density as one reason that Covid is spreading in Columbia Heights and the 16th Street Corridor yesterday. They seem to want to have it both ways. Or maybe one way? (lining pockets and paying her reelection campaign)?

Incredible. Do you have a link to Nesbitt’s statement? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?
The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?
The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?

[Anonymous]

"I'll sacrifice my kids education" reminds me of this WaPo article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/they-believe-more-students-should-attend-neighborhood-schools-but-what-happens-when-its-their-child/2019/04/13/8e797690-3ed6-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html

"Will she go to the selective public high school she was accepted to along with hundreds of other high-achieving children? Or will she attend Eastern Senior High, the traditional public high school blocks from her home, a school with an International Baccalaureate (IB) program and robust extracurricular activities — but low scores on standardized tests?"

"The angst is compounded for Weedon, who is one of the city’s most passionate boosters of neighborhood schools. Eastern would seem like the natural choice. But when it comes to his daughter — when it comes to anyone making a decision about their own child — everything is more complicated."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?
The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?

Listen, that vacation home built to flee the virus-ridden environs of urban density isn’t paying for itself...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I'll sacrifice my kids education" reminds me of this WaPo article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/they-believe-more-students-should-attend-neighborhood-schools-but-what-happens-when-its-their-child/2019/04/13/8e797690-3ed6-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html

"Will she go to the selective public high school she was accepted to along with hundreds of other high-achieving children? Or will she attend Eastern Senior High, the traditional public high school blocks from her home, a school with an International Baccalaureate (IB) program and robust extracurricular activities — but low scores on standardized tests?"

"The angst is compounded for Weedon, who is one of the city’s most passionate boosters of neighborhood schools. Eastern would seem like the natural choice. But when it comes to his daughter — when it comes to anyone making a decision about their own child — everything is more complicated."

Oh yeah.... where did she go again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that is shocking. Additionally, her aide Nesbitt cited density as one reason that Covid is spreading in Columbia Heights and the 16th Street Corridor yesterday. They seem to want to have it both ways. Or maybe one way? (lining pockets and paying her reelection campaign)?

Incredible. Do you have a link to Nesbitt’s statement? Thanks.

Here you go


"The rate of infection increased in two neighborhoods: Columbia Heights and 16th Street Heights. When asked why this might be, Nesbitt cited high housing density and a larger proportion of residents who are essential workers. Race and ethnicity also may be factors, she said.

Many people newly diagnosed with the virus appear to have caught it from someone in their own home. Households with elderly family members or essential workers are at greater risk. "

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-flags-coronavirus-risks-for-african-americans-latinos-those-with-medical-conditions/2292660/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that is shocking. Additionally, her aide Nesbitt cited density as one reason that Covid is spreading in Columbia Heights and the 16th Street Corridor yesterday. They seem to want to have it both ways. Or maybe one way? (lining pockets and paying her reelection campaign)?

Incredible. Do you have a link to Nesbitt’s statement? Thanks.

Here you go


"The rate of infection increased in two neighborhoods: Columbia Heights and 16th Street Heights. When asked why this might be, Nesbitt cited high housing density and a larger proportion of residents who are essential workers. Race and ethnicity also may be factors, she said.

Many people newly diagnosed with the virus appear to have caught it from someone in their own home. Households with elderly family members or essential workers are at greater risk. "

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-flags-coronavirus-risks-for-african-americans-latinos-those-with-medical-conditions/2292660/

Oh.

So density is really not the driving factor then.

Thanks for posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?
The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?

There is a really unhappy Ward 3 resident repeatedly making some stupid comments on this thread.

I'm not the PP but am quite happy with my kids Ward 3 school options. The schools are large but none are actually overcrowded. Even Wilson is much smaller than most suburban high schools. And my kids can walk to all 3 of their schools.

I'm a lot more concerned about the planet they are inheriting and whether or not it will be inhabitable and the affordability of the city we live in than whether or not my privileged upper middle class white kids who attend a very good set of public schools will get a good education or not.

I suspect the person repeatedly making this clumsy point is not even a current public school parent.

[Anonymous]

^^ Wrong on all counts. But nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?
The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Wow! You’re either a troll or a zealous flack working for development interests. Who else would profess a willingness to sacrifice the quality of their child’s classroom experience in an already-overcrowded school to create a profit windfall for developers through relaxing planning and zoning?

There is a really unhappy Ward 3 resident repeatedly making some stupid comments on this thread.

I'm not the PP but am quite happy with my kids Ward 3 school options. The schools are large but none are actually overcrowded. Even Wilson is much smaller than most suburban high schools. And my kids can walk to all 3 of their schools.

I'm a lot more concerned about the planet they are inheriting and whether or not it will be inhabitable and the affordability of the city we live in than whether or not my privileged upper middle class white kids who attend a very good set of public schools will get a good education or not.

I suspect the person repeatedly making this clumsy point is not even a current public school parent.

But the problem is that your kids who walk to Deal and Wilson will attend with hundreds of kids from across the city who spend 2 hours a day on city buses and Metro. If we learned anything from NYC it is that public transit is a major transmission vector. Until there is a vaccine the schools cannot reopen if they are going to permit kids to use mass transit. It will be a lethal disaster and a waste months of sacrifice and social distancing.

[Anonymous]

There is a really unhappy Ward 3 resident repeatedly making some stupid comments on this thread.

I'm not the PP but am quite happy with my kids Ward 3 school options. The schools are large but none are actually overcrowded. Even Wilson is much smaller than most suburban high schools. And my kids can walk to all 3 of their schools.

I'm a lot more concerned about the planet they are inheriting and whether or not it will be inhabitable and the affordability of the city we live in than whether or not my privileged upper middle class white kids who attend a very good set of public schools will get a good education or not.

I suspect the person repeatedly making this clumsy point is not even a current public school parent.

Troll. But you have already exercised your privilege and live in an area where you can walk to three schools without worrying about the quality of the school. Congratulations.

The rest of your statement is patently made up. If you brought your kids into this world to sacrifice them on the alter of your wokeness then you should probably have your kids taken away. But licensing parenting is a few steps down the road for the Density Bros once they figure out that their school system is tapped out in this city (Easier than fixing the system).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a really unhappy Ward 3 resident repeatedly making some stupid comments on this thread.

I'm not the PP but am quite happy with my kids Ward 3 school options. The schools are large but none are actually overcrowded. Even Wilson is much smaller than most suburban high schools. And my kids can walk to all 3 of their schools.

I'm a lot more concerned about the planet they are inheriting and whether or not it will be inhabitable and the affordability of the city we live in than whether or not my privileged upper middle class white kids who attend a very good set of public schools will get a good education or not.

I suspect the person repeatedly making this clumsy point is not even a current public school parent.

Troll. But you have already exercised your privilege and live in an area where you can walk to three schools without worrying about the quality of the school. Congratulations.

The rest of your statement is patently made up. If you brought your kids into this world to sacrifice them on the alter of your wokeness then you should probably have your kids taken away. But licensing parenting is a few steps down the road for the Density Bros once they figure out that their school system is tapped out in this city (Easier than fixing the system).

Yes, some of us who live in Ward 3 and realize how lucky we are to be able to live somewhere where our kids can walk to excellent schools also believe the city should make it easier for more people to do this. I don't work for development interests; if it were up to me, the city would be building public housing in Ward 3, not merely loosening zoning regulations to make it easier to build more densely. I am quite certain that adding some kids to the excellent schools here — even (gasp!) poor kids — will not "sacrifice" them on any altar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a really unhappy Ward 3 resident repeatedly making some stupid comments on this thread.

I'm not the PP but am quite happy with my kids Ward 3 school options. The schools are large but none are actually overcrowded. Even Wilson is much smaller than most suburban high schools. And my kids can walk to all 3 of their schools.

I'm a lot more concerned about the planet they are inheriting and whether or not it will be inhabitable and the affordability of the city we live in than whether or not my privileged upper middle class white kids who attend a very good set of public schools will get a good education or not.

I suspect the person repeatedly making this clumsy point is not even a current public school parent.

Troll. But you have already exercised your privilege and live in an area where you can walk to three schools without worrying about the quality of the school. Congratulations.

The rest of your statement is patently made up. If you brought your kids into this world to sacrifice them on the alter of your wokeness then you should probably have your kids taken away. But licensing parenting is a few steps down the road for the Density Bros once they figure out that their school system is tapped out in this city (Easier than fixing the system).

Yes, some of us who live in Ward 3 and realize how lucky we are to be able to live somewhere where our kids can walk to excellent schools also believe the city should make it easier for more people to do this. I don't work for development interests; if it were up to me, the city would be building public housing in Ward 3, not merely loosening zoning regulations to make it easier to build more densely. I am quite certain that adding some kids to the excellent schools here — even (gasp!) poor kids — will not "sacrifice" them on any altar.

DC just opened a family shelter in Ward 3. Additional, real affordable housing and public housing requires that DC make make investments at sites that the District owns. While there aren’t many such sites in the ward, when they built the Tenley library DC spent a million extra $ for a reinforced structure to support the future addition of several floor of housing on top. It might require a repurposing of a small piece of the Janney playground to make it work. If you’re really an AU Park public school parent, why not step forward and start a petition effort to add public housing at the library/Janney site?