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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You’re wrong. There was a paper published recently that showed the location by neighborhood and property for former racial covenants and restrictions in DC. There had been relatively little in Ward 3, with some in Spring Valley, yet hardly any in neighborhoods like Cleveland Park and AU Park - neighborhoods that they mayor has targeted for lots of density and undercutting single family residential zoning. Care to guess where the most restrictions were? Wards 5 and 7 and especially Ward 4, the mayor’s home Ward. Her Ward 4’s residential neighborhoods actually get additional protection against big development in her Comprehensive Plan proposals. This study is certainly inconvenient for Bowser and her developer flunkies in the planning office, who have been arguing that upzoning and weakening SFH zoning in Ward 3 is necessary to address racial restrictions. (It’s one of their spit ball arguments in favor of development; they keep hurling arguments against the chalk board in the hope that something will stick.) Of course, even if there had been more such historical restrictions WOTP, the mayor’s crowd fails to explain how building lots of luxury condo buildings would address this legacy!

You clearly have a lot to learn about zoning laws and the history of how they have been used to exclude minorities and other "undesirables" from neighborhoods. This isn't just a DC issue. It has happened all over the country.

The poster you are refuting included facts followed up with a map. You PP simply stated that they were 'clearly' wrong. This thread has talked about redlining and how it is being misused by the Mayor. So essentially you just want us to take you at your word you have some non documented knowledge about Ward 3 non inclusivity, or densification being the answer to previous housing wrongs.

[Anonymous]

Even before the corona virus there growth in major cities/metro areas was starting to slow. Millennials have been leaving cities in droves, because having a crying baby in a small 200 sq ft apartment you're paying $2800/no for in rent just so you can have swanky city amenities like cafes and craft cocktail bars isn't very attractive.

It's the same life cycle from city to burbs as previous generations. Gen Z will move into cities to repeat the same cycle, but millennials are over the post-college life and have kids to worry about. No one wants to spend 45 minutes looking for a place to park and still have to unload the kids after going to grocery store. No one wants to send their kids to terrible city public schools. No one wants to flush hundreds and thousands down the toilet in rent and build $0 in equity just so you can live close to some fancy restaurants. You stop caring about city life the older you get. You can always drive in when you want and leave so that you don't have to pay the insane premium of city life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So it appears that Crestwood was practically the DC epicenter of racial covenants. Yet this single family neighborhood in the mayor’s own Ward 4 gets additional safeguards in her proposed comprehensive plan changes to “protect neighborhood character” from development!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So it appears that Crestwood was practically the DC epicenter of racial covenants. Yet this single family neighborhood in the mayor’s own Ward 4 gets additional safeguards in her proposed comprehensive plan changes to “protect neighborhood character” from development!

Mt Pleasant even more so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You’re wrong. There was a paper published recently that showed the location by neighborhood and property for former racial covenants and restrictions in DC. There had been relatively little in Ward 3, with some in Spring Valley, yet hardly any in neighborhoods like Cleveland Park and AU Park - neighborhoods that they mayor has targeted for lots of density and undercutting single family residential zoning. Care to guess where the most restrictions were? Wards 5 and 7 and especially Ward 4, the mayor’s home Ward. Her Ward 4’s residential neighborhoods actually get additional protection against big development in her Comprehensive Plan proposals. This study is certainly inconvenient for Bowser and her developer flunkies in the planning office, who have been arguing that upzoning and weakening SFH zoning in Ward 3 is necessary to address racial restrictions. (It’s one of their spit ball arguments in favor of development; they keep hurling arguments against the chalk board in the hope that something will stick.) Of course, even if there had been more such historical restrictions WOTP, the mayor’s crowd fails to explain how building lots of luxury condo buildings would address this legacy!

You clearly have a lot to learn about zoning laws and the history of how they have been used to exclude minorities and other "undesirables" from neighborhoods. This isn't just a DC issue. It has happened all over the country.

So let me understand this argument correctly? Because, say, Levittown’s zoning historically tended to reinforce racially exclusionary restrictions,therefore we need to change zoning to add much height and density to build lots of luxury flats in AU Park and Cleveland Park? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So it appears that Crestwood was practically the DC epicenter of racial covenants. Yet this single family neighborhood in the mayor’s own Ward 4 gets additional safeguards in her proposed comprehensive plan changes to “protect neighborhood character” from development!

She is SUCH a freakin' hypocrite

[Anonymous]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-bounce-back-coronavirus-pandemic-moodys-144452350.html

Recovery will depend on population density
Kamins believed that the twin factors of low population density and educational attainment were going to boost these metro areas.

“A key difference between this recovery and the last recovery is the population density,” he explained. “It's going to have a different effect this time than it did last time.”

Denver, Salt Lake City, and Washington D.C. were also noted as positioned for a relatively quick recovery. D.C. in particular was an interesting case, Kamins explained: “That’s one where I think that was more a function of just as population density being a lot lower than other kind of Northeastern cities.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-bounce-back-coronavirus-pandemic-moodys-144452350.html

Recovery will depend on population density
Kamins believed that the twin factors of low population density and educational attainment were going to boost these metro areas.

“A key difference between this recovery and the last recovery is the population density,” he explained. “It's going to have a different effect this time than it did last time.”

Denver, Salt Lake City, and Washington D.C. were also noted as positioned for a relatively quick recovery. D.C. in particular was an interesting case, Kamins explained: “That’s one where I think that was more a function of just as population density being a lot lower than other kind of Northeastern cities.”

Fair enough. According to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Washington, DC is already the densest sub-national jurisdiction in the country. So it should become a lot denser, why exactly?

[Anonymous]

According to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Washington, DC is already the densest sub-national jurisdiction in the country

Is this a quote? It does not even make sense. Does he know what a sub-national jurisdiction is? So DC is the densest State, county, city town in the USA. DC is not in the top 20. Strange statement but no, certainly it would appear that even the experts agree that DC's low density will end up making COVID's impact less than it otherwise would have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

According to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Washington, DC is already the densest sub-national jurisdiction in the country

Is this a quote? It does not even make sense. Does he know what a sub-national jurisdiction is? So DC is the densest State, county, city town in the USA. DC is not in the top 20. Strange statement but no, certainly it would appear that even the experts agree that DC's low density will end up making COVID's impact less than it otherwise would have been.

DC is certainly the densist “State “ if measured into that basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density kills.

OMG go do a puzzle or something constructive instead of pushing this non-sense.

Here’s What D.C.’s Neighborhood-Level Coronavirus Numbers Do—And Don’t—Tell Us

“We see these cases in high-density mixed-use corridors where the average number of individuals per household is higher than the city average,” she said. Nesbitt also said the “typical occupations in those neighborhoods are more related to the essential work that continues to happen,” such as construction and healthcare.

This really doesn't show which direction the causation is going. Are we seeing more cases in these areas because more people who work in essential jobs and can't work from home live there -- because the density means the housing is cheaper? Or are we seeing the cases BECAUSE OF the density?

If lots of corporate law firms were insisting that partners do all their work in their offices, we'd probably see many more cases in Ward 3, as people got sick at work and then infected their families. Low-density neighborhoods having a low case rate doesn't necessarily prove that it's because the houses are farther apart; it could also prove that the only people who can afford to live in single-family homes in D.C. are people who work in jobs you're easily able to do remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-bounce-back-coronavirus-pandemic-moodys-144452350.html

Recovery will depend on population density
Kamins believed that the twin factors of low population density and educational attainment were going to boost these metro areas.

“A key difference between this recovery and the last recovery is the population density,” he explained. “It's going to have a different effect this time than it did last time.”

Denver, Salt Lake City, and Washington D.C. were also noted as positioned for a relatively quick recovery. D.C. in particular was an interesting case, Kamins explained: “That’s one where I think that was more a function of just as population density being a lot lower than other kind of Northeastern cities.”

Fair enough. According to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Washington, DC is already the densest sub-national jurisdiction in the country. So it should become a lot denser, why exactly?

Yeah, DC is already very dense. Some parts of DC are more densely populated than parts of Manhattan. We have a bunch of areas with more than 50,000 people per square mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density kills.

OMG go do a puzzle or something constructive instead of pushing this non-sense.

Here’s What D.C.’s Neighborhood-Level Coronavirus Numbers Do—And Don’t—Tell Us

“We see these cases in high-density mixed-use corridors where the average number of individuals per household is higher than the city average,” she said. Nesbitt also said the “typical occupations in those neighborhoods are more related to the essential work that continues to happen,” such as construction and healthcare.

This really doesn't show which direction the causation is going. Are we seeing more cases in these areas because more people who work in essential jobs and can't work from home live there -- because the density means the housing is cheaper? Or are we seeing the cases BECAUSE OF the density?

If lots of corporate law firms were insisting that partners do all their work in their offices, we'd probably see many more cases in Ward 3, as people got sick at work and then infected their families. Low-density neighborhoods having a low case rate doesn't necessarily prove that it's because the houses are farther apart; it could also prove that the only people who can afford to live in single-family homes in D.C. are people who work in jobs you're easily able to do remotely.

I agree. Density might be correlation, not causation. If NWDC is full of people who are teleworking because they have white-collar jobs that can be done from home, then it's not the housing density, it's the income/occupation issue. And there's density as in apartment/condo living, but a single nuclear family in each unit, and there's density as in many people living in the same home (people with lots of roommates because they can't otherwise afford rent/multigenerational housing, etc.). The "average number of individuals per household" gets at the latter, not the former. I'd bet that the "average number of individuals per household" in our NWDC apartment building is below the city average (students, elderly people, and families with one or two kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density kills.

OMG go do a puzzle or something constructive instead of pushing this non-sense.

Here’s What D.C.’s Neighborhood-Level Coronavirus Numbers Do—And Don’t—Tell Us

“We see these cases in high-density mixed-use corridors where the average number of individuals per household is higher than the city average,” she said. Nesbitt also said the “typical occupations in those neighborhoods are more related to the essential work that continues to happen,” such as construction and healthcare.

This really doesn't show which direction the causation is going. Are we seeing more cases in these areas because more people who work in essential jobs and can't work from home live there -- because the density means the housing is cheaper? Or are we seeing the cases BECAUSE OF the density?

If lots of corporate law firms were insisting that partners do all their work in their offices, we'd probably see many more cases in Ward 3, as people got sick at work and then infected their families. Low-density neighborhoods having a low case rate doesn't necessarily prove that it's because the houses are farther apart; it could also prove that the only people who can afford to live in single-family homes in D.C. are people who work in jobs you're easily able to do remotely.

They are now saying Coronavirus can come in through your eyeballs. I think it's safe to say less density is less density. Of COURSE if you are able to tele-work you are less likely to get it. But also if your are not sharing an elevator or jostling on a crowded sidewalk with potential carriers.

I agree. Density might be correlation, not causation. If NWDC is full of people who are teleworking because they have white-collar jobs that can be done from home, then it's not the housing density, it's the income/occupation issue. And there's density as in apartment/condo living, but a single nuclear family in each unit, and there's density as in many people living in the same home (people with lots of roommates because they can't otherwise afford rent/multigenerational housing, etc.). The "average number of individuals per household" gets at the latter, not the former. I'd bet that the "average number of individuals per household" in our NWDC apartment building is below the city average (students, elderly people, and families with one or two kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density kills.

OMG go do a puzzle or something constructive instead of pushing this non-sense.

Here’s What D.C.’s Neighborhood-Level Coronavirus Numbers Do—And Don’t—Tell Us

“We see these cases in high-density mixed-use corridors where the average number of individuals per household is higher than the city average,” she said. Nesbitt also said the “typical occupations in those neighborhoods are more related to the essential work that continues to happen,” such as construction and healthcare.

This really doesn't show which direction the causation is going. Are we seeing more cases in these areas because more people who work in essential jobs and can't work from home live there -- because the density means the housing is cheaper? Or are we seeing the cases BECAUSE OF the density?

If lots of corporate law firms were insisting that partners do all their work in their offices, we'd probably see many more cases in Ward 3, as people got sick at work and then infected their families. Low-density neighborhoods having a low case rate doesn't necessarily prove that it's because the houses are farther apart; it could also prove that the only people who can afford to live in single-family homes in D.C. are people who work in jobs you're easily able to do remotely.

They are now saying Coronavirus can come in through your eyeballs. I think it's safe to say less density is less density. Of COURSE if you are able to tele-work you are less likely to get it. But also if your are not sharing an elevator or jostling on a crowded sidewalk with potential carriers.

I agree. Density might be correlation, not causation. If NWDC is full of people who are teleworking because they have white-collar jobs that can be done from home, then it's not the housing density, it's the income/occupation issue. And there's density as in apartment/condo living, but a single nuclear family in each unit, and there's density as in many people living in the same home (people with lots of roommates because they can't otherwise afford rent/multigenerational housing, etc.). The "average number of individuals per household" gets at the latter, not the former. I'd bet that the "average number of individuals per household" in our NWDC apartment building is below the city average (students, elderly people, and families with one or two kids).

They are now saying Coronavirus can come in through your eyeballs. I think it's safe to say less density is less density. Of COURSE if you are able to tele-work you are less likely to get it. But also if your are not sharing an elevator or jostling on a crowded sidewalk with potential carriers.