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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone with a brain in her head understands that density is a driving force in this pandemic. Stop the contortions trying to argue otherwise. We’re not idiots.

But people are conflating a whole bunch of issues so that ANY density means we will all die of a viral infection. Increasing density more than current levels in most of the District would still make it far less dense than most neighborhoods in New York, which people keep bringing up in the context of covid and density. And there’s a whole separate question around work and exposure while commuting or working, which is how many current cases appear to be happening. It doesn’t matter if you live in a 3,000 detached house on 4 acres of land if you have to go work in a grocery store full of customers.

Hyperbole why don't you. No, nobody is saying that everybody will die. That has not been stated once in this thread. But go ahead and use extreme language to avoid making a fact based argument. Who stated it earlier? So far there are LOTS of experts talking about the problems with density and corona virus. I have not seen a single expert quoted yet saying that dense growth is the future of combatting COVID like pandemics...well actually Mayor Bowser said that. But on the expert side of things, nobody yet.

In fact the Density Bros are already trying to reshape issues with density into 'overcrowding'. Density good, overcrowding bad.

No one is saying dense growth is a policy aimed at combatting pandemics. The question is whether this pandemic -- which will, most likely, be behind us within two or three years -- should permanently affect our land use decisions. Since most of the District is still far less dense than most of New York, it doesn't seem like we should be making long-term decisions to shut down future increases in density around covid-19.

But people like the existing lower to moderate density in their neighborhoods. I am quite sure that with the pandemic that many residents of AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park, Palisades, etc, value now more than ever the qualities that make walks, or socially distant bike riding by kids, possible and have little desire to have lots more height and density change that. Not to mention that all the push for dense transit-oriented development and the notion that no one in DC is going to drive anymore already seems so last decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a concrete suggestion of how to fight the Mayor's plan? After all, she has the density bros on her side...

One idea is that DC can quit electing mayors that are addicted to crack

Unless you mean, developer money, do not see this applying to current Mayor. Any helpful suggestions? My issue is that once the wheels are in motion (and the wheels on this density thing are well in motion for Ward 3), they become impossible to stop.

Bowser doesn’t seem to be a crack addict. But in many respects, certainly loose ethics, she is more like Marion Barry than any of the other DC mayors. She’s not as smart as Barry was, but her administration is nearly as corrupt as Barry’s. And she’s even cozier with favored developers than he was.

Which D.C. mayor has not been close with developers, exactly?

I liked Anthony Williams and his relationship with contractors. There was no smoke and mirrors. He told you how he stood and why he signed that contract. You may not have liked it, but he was honest about it and why (MLB/Nats Park)

He revitalized downtown from boring tall buildings to exciting tall buildings. That made sense. I think Columbia Heights went too quickly--the whole area around the metro got built up fast and unattractively. I worry that's the goal with Ward 3. the Mayor's ram rodding seems relentless and with no regard to character etc

[Anonymous]

"In recent decades, this dispersed model has been increasingly disparaged by politicians, the media and people in academia who tend to favor the New York model of density and mass transit. Yet even before COVID-19 most Angelenos rejected their advice, preferring to live and work in dispersed patterns and traveling by car. This bit of passive civic resistance may have saved lives in this pandemic.”

►Density kills. The coronavirus has been much more deadly in places like New York City or Boston than in rural settings. As demographer Joel Kotkin notes, Los Angeles has done much better than other big cities, because it’s less dense. “L.A.’s sprawling, multi-polar urban form, by its nature, results in far less 'exposure density' to the contagion than more densely packed urban areas, particularly those where large, crowded workplaces are common and workers are mass-transit-dependent...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"In recent decades, this dispersed model has been increasingly disparaged by politicians, the media and people in academia who tend to favor the New York model of density and mass transit. Yet even before COVID-19 most Angelenos rejected their advice, preferring to live and work in dispersed patterns and traveling by car. This bit of passive civic resistance may have saved lives in this pandemic.”

►Density kills. The coronavirus has been much more deadly in places like New York City or Boston than in rural settings. As demographer Joel Kotkin notes, Los Angeles has done much better than other big cities, because it’s less dense. “L.A.’s sprawling, multi-polar urban form, by its nature, results in far less 'exposure density' to the contagion than more densely packed urban areas, particularly those where large, crowded workplaces are common and workers are mass-transit-dependent...

Density doesn’t have to kill. Seoul is the sixth-densest city in the world, and they got the virus completely under control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"In recent decades, this dispersed model has been increasingly disparaged by politicians, the media and people in academia who tend to favor the New York model of density and mass transit. Yet even before COVID-19 most Angelenos rejected their advice, preferring to live and work in dispersed patterns and traveling by car. This bit of passive civic resistance may have saved lives in this pandemic.”

►Density kills. The coronavirus has been much more deadly in places like New York City or Boston than in rural settings. As demographer Joel Kotkin notes, Los Angeles has done much better than other big cities, because it’s less dense. “L.A.’s sprawling, multi-polar urban form, by its nature, results in far less 'exposure density' to the contagion than more densely packed urban areas, particularly those where large, crowded workplaces are common and workers are mass-transit-dependent...

Density doesn’t have to kill. Seoul is the sixth-densest city in the world, and they got the virus completely under control.

Apparently you have not been keeping up with the news. S Korea, for many the gold standard for COVID response, acknowledged that they opened up too early after renewed spikes in infection.

The reemergence of coronavirus cases in many parts of Asia is also prompting a return to closures in places that had claimed success in battling the disease or appeared to have eradicated it altogether, including South Korea, regarded as one of the continent’s top success stories.

South Korea last week rescinded a go-ahead for bars and clubs to reopen after a spike in cases, hours after officials announced the lifting of previous social distancing restrictions and the start of a “new everyday life with the coronavirus.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in warned his country Sunday to “brace for the pandemic’s second wave,” calling the battle against covid-19 a “prolonged” fight.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, there was an obit in WAPO today. 61 year old woman who had a three level home. She lived in the home with two of her children and seven grandchildren. That is a total of 10 people. In addition, she rented out two rooms (no numbers given.) So, there had to be a MINIMUM of 12 people living in her house. In addition, she had a child care center.

This is pretty dense. So, we build high density buildings. Where are you going to put a family of ten?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, there was an obit in WAPO today. 61 year old woman who had a three level home. She lived in the home with two of her children and seven grandchildren. That is a total of 10 people. In addition, she rented out two rooms (no numbers given.) So, there had to be a MINIMUM of 12 people living in her house. In addition, she had a child care center.

This is pretty dense. So, we build high density buildings. Where are you going to put a family of ten?

I think that you're confused about the difference between "density" and "crowding."

Also, is the idea that all housing is unsuitable unless it can accommodate 12 people and a child care center?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But people like the existing lower to moderate density in their neighborhoods. I am quite sure that with the pandemic that many residents of AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park, Palisades, etc, value now more than ever the qualities that make walks, or socially distant bike riding by kids, possible and have little desire to have lots more height and density change that. Not to mention that all the push for dense transit-oriented development and the notion that no one in DC is going to drive anymore already seems so last decade.

I don't understand how six-story buildings, or even fourteen-story buildings, would prevent kids from riding their bikes.

[Anonymous]

So the density discussion is effectively over in DC until a few questions can be answered. (I know that the Mayor is hosting her secret hearings, but those are simply pro forma and will die on the vine. The Council is not voting density right now. They don't have the time or the money.)

Density will be on pause until several questions can be answered.

1. Elevators need to be re designed. They need air exchangers and holographic buttons. They need to be contact free.

2. Stair wells need air circulation and non occupancy sterilization where once the door closes and the stairs are empty, UV Light turns on and sterilizes surfaces.

3. Common areas need modern air exchangers. The kinds you find in envelope homes.

4. I think the days of common kitchen spaces are gone in multi family homes. Individual cooking spaces are simply cleaner. This is a bummer because DC has some great apartment buildings with beautiful common kitchen spaces.

5. I HATE to admit this, but parking is going to have to come back for several years. There is just no way WMATA is going to come up with a clean metro system anytime soon. So people are going to drive. Therefore all of these new buildings with no parking spots is simply going to mean cars parked on the streets. We need to go back to old parking spot for units built.

6. Low income housing is going to need to be city wired for internet. If you have seen any of the public school discussion, distance learning is simply not happening with families that cannot afford internet at home. So if the housing is going to be subsidized or otherwise low income, it needs to have city provided internet, not simply access to a new inbound school.

And the excuse of just build it now and we will work out the details is simply not good enough because we won't work out the details. This will pass and we will re learn these lessons when this rolls through again.

Right now the density discussion is being made solely based on economic lines (who can I sell building rights to). Any future discussion needs to include public health implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

5. I HATE to admit this, but parking is going to have to come back for several years. There is just no way WMATA is going to come up with a clean metro system anytime soon. So people are going to drive. Therefore all of these new buildings with no parking spots is simply going to mean cars parked on the streets. We need to go back to old parking spot for units built.

The geometry of the city hasn't changed.

And requiring underground parking based on the idea that every 100 years or so, there will be a pandemic, and people who have the money for it will want to drive cars instead of taking Metro, and therefore apartment buildings must have expensive underground parking so that these people can conveniently park their cars not on the street - that's just silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, there was an obit in WAPO today. 61 year old woman who had a three level home. She lived in the home with two of her children and seven grandchildren. That is a total of 10 people. In addition, she rented out two rooms (no numbers given.) So, there had to be a MINIMUM of 12 people living in her house. In addition, she had a child care center.

This is pretty dense. So, we build high density buildings. Where are you going to put a family of ten?

I think that you're confused about the difference between "density" and "crowding."

Also, is the idea that all housing is unsuitable unless it can accommodate 12 people and a child care center?

Ahhh...the Density Bros back with their smoke and mirrors shifting the discussion from 'density' (all of the experts are pointing to density) to their new term of choice 'crowding'.

Do the Density Bros understand that with increased density comes increased crowding? The Density Bros like to envision that 'smart density' solves crowding that has roots in culture beyond economic needs.

Look at the 'state of the art' DC family short term housing. It is designed to create a crowding situation with shared dining areas and bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, there was an obit in WAPO today. 61 year old woman who had a three level home. She lived in the home with two of her children and seven grandchildren. That is a total of 10 people. In addition, she rented out two rooms (no numbers given.) So, there had to be a MINIMUM of 12 people living in her house. In addition, she had a child care center.

This is pretty dense. So, we build high density buildings. Where are you going to put a family of ten?

I think that you're confused about the difference between "density" and "crowding."

Also, is the idea that all housing is unsuitable unless it can accommodate 12 people and a child care center?

Ahhh...the Density Bros back with their smoke and mirrors shifting the discussion from 'density' (all of the experts are pointing to density) to their new term of choice 'crowding'.

Do the Density Bros understand that with increased density comes increased crowding? The Density Bros like to envision that 'smart density' solves crowding that has roots in culture beyond economic needs.

Look at the 'state of the art' DC family short term housing. It is designed to create a crowding situation with shared dining areas and bathrooms.

I'm not any kind of bro.

If you oppose crowding, then oppose crowding. But to complain, on the one hand, that they're only building efficiencies and 1 BR apartments for entitled millennials to live by themselves - which actually reduces crowding and infectious-disease transmission - and then on the other hand, that building more housing increases crowding and infectious-disease transmission, that's just foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5. I HATE to admit this, but parking is going to have to come back for several years. There is just no way WMATA is going to come up with a clean metro system anytime soon. So people are going to drive. Therefore all of these new buildings with no parking spots is simply going to mean cars parked on the streets. We need to go back to old parking spot for units built.

The geometry of the city hasn't changed.

And requiring underground parking based on the idea that every 100 years or so, there will be a pandemic, and people who have the money for it will want to drive cars instead of taking Metro, and therefore apartment buildings must have expensive underground parking so that these people can conveniently park their cars not on the street - that's just silly.

The geometry of the city has not changed. Nobody said it has. The fact that people including workers will now be driving rather than taking mass transit. That has changed. And if through density we want to create housing for those worker in the city so that they are not commuting from the burbs, those workers will need parking. This is not a 100 year pandemic. This will be here for a while in waves. We need to have design a city that allows us to operate during future waves.

Oh, out of curiosity have you visited a construction site in DC over the last five years. The workers all arrive in MD registered vehicles and park on streets adjacent to the construction site. If you are trying to capture that population and have them move into the city you need to acknowledge that they come with cars and are certainly not going to use metros which NYC has said definitively spread the virus through NYC and through its labor population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5. I HATE to admit this, but parking is going to have to come back for several years. There is just no way WMATA is going to come up with a clean metro system anytime soon. So people are going to drive. Therefore all of these new buildings with no parking spots is simply going to mean cars parked on the streets. We need to go back to old parking spot for units built.

The geometry of the city hasn't changed.

And requiring underground parking based on the idea that every 100 years or so, there will be a pandemic, and people who have the money for it will want to drive cars instead of taking Metro, and therefore apartment buildings must have expensive underground parking so that these people can conveniently park their cars not on the street - that's just silly.

The geometry of the city has not changed. Nobody said it has. The fact that people including workers will now be driving rather than taking mass transit. That has changed. And if through density we want to create housing for those worker in the city so that they are not commuting from the burbs, those workers will need parking. This is not a 100 year pandemic. This will be here for a while in waves. We need to have design a city that allows us to operate during future waves.

Oh, out of curiosity have you visited a construction site in DC over the last five years. The workers all arrive in MD registered vehicles and park on streets adjacent to the construction site. If you are trying to capture that population and have them move into the city you need to acknowledge that they come with cars and are certainly not going to use metros which NYC has said definitively spread the virus through NYC and through its labor population.

Well, then they can sit in epic traffic jams and have nowhere to store their cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, there was an obit in WAPO today. 61 year old woman who had a three level home. She lived in the home with two of her children and seven grandchildren. That is a total of 10 people. In addition, she rented out two rooms (no numbers given.) So, there had to be a MINIMUM of 12 people living in her house. In addition, she had a child care center.

This is pretty dense. So, we build high density buildings. Where are you going to put a family of ten?

I think that you're confused about the difference between "density" and "crowding."

Also, is the idea that all housing is unsuitable unless it can accommodate 12 people and a child care center?

Ahhh...the Density Bros back with their smoke and mirrors shifting the discussion from 'density' (all of the experts are pointing to density) to their new term of choice 'crowding'.

Do the Density Bros understand that with increased density comes increased crowding? The Density Bros like to envision that 'smart density' solves crowding that has roots in culture beyond economic needs.

Look at the 'state of the art' DC family short term housing. It is designed to create a crowding situation with shared dining areas and bathrooms.

I'm not any kind of bro.

If you oppose crowding, then oppose crowding. But to complain, on the one hand, that they're only building efficiencies and 1 BR apartments for entitled millennials to live by themselves - which actually reduces crowding and infectious-disease transmission - and then on the other hand, that building more housing increases crowding and infectious-disease transmission, that's just foolish.

You see, you inferred this because you are blind to the fact that density might not be the answer. I believe that this thread has stated time and again that there is ZERO evidence that creating density reduces crowding and infectious-disease transmission. Somebody keeps asking for any sort of evidence to that end. A 1960's study that theorized on the subject was provided. But the very article called it pseudoscience.

I think thread commenters are simply over the argument that density solves all when in fact, that is just foolish as stated most recently by Governor Cuomo.

“There is a density level in NYC that is destructive,” Gov Cuomo tweeted Sunday, after similar comments at one of his daily press briefings. He’d seen New Yorkers out in parks together, behaving as if this were a normal sunny spring weekend, and he was dismayed. Togetherness itself could now be deadly.

“It has to stop and it has to stop now,” he tweeted. “NYC must develop an immediate plan to reduce density.”