Scrapping the DC Height Limit

[Anonymous]

DC Smart Growth connections with Russian interests are known. So now the model is also Red China?! Is dense mixed-use a sub chapter of Comrade Xi Thought?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as Chairman Mendelson is on the Council, the Height Act will not be gutted and DC residents will continue to enjoy light and open vistas. We have a uniquely beautiful city. Let’s keep it that way.

Lol yes K and 20th is great. Let’s build more boxes!

Roslyn demonstrates that building higher doesn’t necessarily result in better design!

It’s better vs k street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as Chairman Mendelson is on the Council, the Height Act will not be gutted and DC residents will continue to enjoy light and open vistas. We have a uniquely beautiful city. Let’s keep it that way.

Lol yes K and 20th is great. Let’s build more boxes!

Roslyn demonstrates that building higher doesn’t necessarily result in better design!

It’s better vs k street.

Real estate values tell a different story.

[Anonymous]

I would love to see y'all become the District of Condos.

[Anonymous]

Yep need to do away with the height limit. It is one of the stupidest thing in DC both for livability and aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

A bald faced lie. Rule of thumb for you: the higher the density, the more climate friendly it is. Lower zoning densities = less climate friendly.

Hope that helps. I hope you don't vote.

[Anonymous]

I've noticed that a lot of the new development is blowing up existing buildings and starting over, like the new massive structure next to City Ridge reolacinf the old massive structure --.my understanding is destroying and replacing so much concrete is a horrible carbon footprint
...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: DC Smart Growth connections with Russian interests are known. So now the model is also Red China?! Is dense mixed-use a sub chapter of Comrade Xi Thought?

Huh? What? Have a credible cite for us to know what the hell you're talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that a lot of the new development is blowing up existing buildings and starting over, like the new massive structure next to City Ridge reolacinf the old massive structure --.my understanding is destroying and replacing so much concrete is a horrible carbon footprint
...

So much for Northwest DC’s “most exclusive enclaves” addressing climate change!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: DC Smart Growth connections with Russian interests are known. So now the model is also Red China?! Is dense mixed-use a sub chapter of Comrade Xi Thought?

Huh? What? Have a credible cite for us to know what the hell you're talking about?

Read the Mueller report and the Senate Intel Committee report on Russian interference in elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as Chairman Mendelson is on the Council, the Height Act will not be gutted and DC residents will continue to enjoy light and open vistas. We have a uniquely beautiful city. Let’s keep it that way.

Phil is awesome. Sometimes he seems like the real adult on the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird to me that all the talk of zoning and such is concentrated on Ward 3. Obviously parts of Ward 3 are sparse SFHs, and parts are dense along the main corridors. I totally support making the corridors denser, and probably relaxing zoning elsewhere too.

But the truth is there's lots of slightly-less-expensive-than-Ward-3 land elsewhere in DC. I understand why people don't want to live in those places! But to have a discussion solely about Ward 3 without providing an (or the) explicit reason to discuss only Ward 3 is dishonest.

Rezone everything!

I think there are two issues here -- one is that the main corridors in Ward 3 could be far denser (and are all along good transit toward downtown), which is why that comes up a lot. The second is that the zoning in the sparse SFH parts of Ward 3 is exclusionary -- there's just no way people can live in most of the area unless they can pay over $1 million, often well over $1 million or even over $3 million.

You could probably get broader agreement faster on just resolving that first part, i.e.., raising height limits and increasing density on Wisconsin and Connecticut and not making many additional changes. But the reason the second one comes up is because Ward 3 is basically the only part of the city where the zoning makes it a domain for rich people only. People are uncomfortable saying that explicitly at times because it can make those of us who live here feel defensive, and it also runs directly at issues of race, class, etc.

There’s a ton on dense housing being built on Wisconsin Ave. But I don’t see similar density being as appropriate on Connecticut Ave where some areas like Cleveland Park are protected lower-scale historic districts. They can’t build a 10-floor building on top of a landmarked 2-story building and still call that historic preservation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that a lot of the new development is blowing up existing buildings and starting over, like the new massive structure next to City Ridge reolacinf the old massive structure --.my understanding is destroying and replacing so much concrete is a horrible carbon footprint
...

This is what happens when NIMBY and anti-growth boosters get their way. The land becomes way more valuable than the house so rich people bulldoze the houses and build their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that a lot of the new development is blowing up existing buildings and starting over, like the new massive structure next to City Ridge reolacinf the old massive structure --.my understanding is destroying and replacing so much concrete is a horrible carbon footprint
...

This is what happens when NIMBY and anti-growth boosters get their way. The land becomes way more valuable than the house so rich people bulldoze the houses and build their own.

Where is your home? Presuming you own one. Do you have a yard? Driveway? Trees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

A bald faced lie. Rule of thumb for you: the higher the density, the more climate friendly it is. Lower zoning densities = less climate friendly.

Hope that helps. I hope you don't vote.

You clearly are not an expert. This is false on a number of different levels, however it is becoming urban legend with urbanist types which is making for bad policy outcomes.

You only think transportation emissions matter, but that is only about 25% of GHGs. You don’t consider embedded emissions, building emissions and consumption based emissions.

Taller buildings have higher embedded emissions because they must include stronger materials such as steel and cement that emit significant quantities of GHGs. Taller buildings, particularly ones with lots of glass, are inefficient and have higher energy losses than shorter building. Lastly, people that live in more dense areas are generally more affluent, which means that they consume more stuff which leads to more emissions and crucially, while they may drive less on average, they fly more. One round trip flight for you and your partner to take the vacation of your lives in Thailand has almost the same GHG emissions as the average car in the USA. The reality is that a large suburban family in a SFH that drives everywhere, including for their vacations, will have significantly lower GHG emissions than the typical UMC Manhattanite.