We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

By historic I mean character, charm and old / un recoverable if razed because "we just don't make them like that anymore" in terms of labor and craftsmanship. Most of the homes in CP, AU Park, Tenleytown, Chevy Chase qualify - even if they haven't gone through the onerous historical process, they are certainly worth preserving. Take a walk around the tree lined streets and you will see everything from turn of the century mansions, to 1920s duplexes in various "styles" popular at the time like Spanish revival or Georgian neo classical, to craftsman cottages, to mid century ranches. The unprotected by historical status are slowly being chiseled away at by McMansion types that you typically would find in Bethesda, GGW and the vibrant density folks would like to add on to the effect by clearing the way (of these homes) to build small apartment buildings up to the sidewalk (no front lawns which they consider wasted space). This would take the neighborhood described and turn it into an innocuous anywhere USA. For an example of something that was "saved" from developers, MacLean Gardens was on the chopping block in the 70s from a previous wave of development zeal. It was saved and most people would agree it provides a ton of charming homes and condos and rentals in an entry to mid priced range. Low profile, leafy, and very neighborhoody.

The Office of Planning last year proposed McLean Gardens to be FLUMmed up to high density. OP backed away from that, but then included McLean Gardens into a "special study zone" for big density changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

Ward 3 has already exceeded the mayor’s 2025 net new housing goal 4 years early, when you look at units already under construction, ready to break ground and fully approved. This canard that Ward 3 has no density is a complete fabrication, tovarich.

Great! I think we still have plenty of room for even more new housing, and especially actually affordable housing, in Ward 3, where I also live.

Absolutely. Several of the Ward 3 ANCs are being asked to support DC’s purchase of the Wardman Marriott site for affordable housing. This could be a once in a generation game-changer.

Add that area to the growing list of places to avoid in the city.

The Smart Growth industry, which constantly pushes the theme that DC needs more affordable housing, does not support converting the Marriott site for affordable units. The site is a potential good mine for market rate development, which is the Smart Growth real goal. “Affordable housing” is simply the political pretext to obtain their goal.

I guess, though here's the chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth arguing that (a) yes, it's a good idea to explore turning the Marriott site into affordable housing but (b) even if that happens, it shouldn't mean that's the end of the push for more workforce or affordable housing in Ward 3: https://www.streetsensemedia.org/article/there-is-no-silver-bullet-for-affordable-housing-in-ward-3/#.YO9EYi1h2qk

The "Street Sense Media" piece was not exactly an endorsement of turning the Marriott site into affordable housing. It's interesting that none of the "Smart Growth" ANC commissioners in Ward 3 supported affordable housing there; they all wanted market rate housing at the site, which is exactly what will happen.

As for the piece, the chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth, who worked with Paul Manafort, might have used a different metaphor than "Get out of jail free card."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

By historic I mean character, charm and old / un recoverable if razed because "we just don't make them like that anymore" in terms of labor and craftsmanship. Most of the homes in CP, AU Park, Tenleytown, Chevy Chase qualify - even if they haven't gone through the onerous historical process, they are certainly worth preserving. Take a walk around the tree lined streets and you will see everything from turn of the century mansions, to 1920s duplexes in various "styles" popular at the time like Spanish revival or Georgian neo classical, to craftsman cottages, to mid century ranches. The unprotected by historical status are slowly being chiseled away at by McMansion types that you typically would find in Bethesda, GGW and the vibrant density folks would like to add on to the effect by clearing the way (of these homes) to build small apartment buildings up to the sidewalk (no front lawns which they consider wasted space). This would take the neighborhood described and turn it into an innocuous anywhere USA. For an example of something that was "saved" from developers, MacLean Gardens was on the chopping block in the 70s from a previous wave of development zeal. It was saved and most people would agree it provides a ton of charming homes and condos and rentals in an entry to mid priced range. Low profile, leafy, and very neighborhoody.

The Office of Planning last year proposed McLean Gardens to be FLUMmed up to high density. OP backed away from that, but then included McLean Gardens into a "special study zone" for big density changes.

Oh dear God..is nothing sacred? Honestly one of the few things DC has going for it is different pristine (architecturally) neighborhoods with character, not just in NW but across the city. Would you FLUM up Savannah? Wish these OP would just leave it. I guess they need to justify their existence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

Ward 3 has already exceeded the mayor’s 2025 net new housing goal 4 years early, when you look at units already under construction, ready to break ground and fully approved. This canard that Ward 3 has no density is a complete fabrication, tovarich.

Great! I think we still have plenty of room for even more new housing, and especially actually affordable housing, in Ward 3, where I also live.

Absolutely. Several of the Ward 3 ANCs are being asked to support DC’s purchase of the Wardman Marriott site for affordable housing. This could be a once in a generation game-changer.

Add that area to the growing list of places to avoid in the city.

The Smart Growth industry, which constantly pushes the theme that DC needs more affordable housing, does not support converting the Marriott site for affordable units. The site is a potential good mine for market rate development, which is the Smart Growth real goal. “Affordable housing” is simply the political pretext to obtain their goal.

I guess, though here's the chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth arguing that (a) yes, it's a good idea to explore turning the Marriott site into affordable housing but (b) even if that happens, it shouldn't mean that's the end of the push for more workforce or affordable housing in Ward 3: https://www.streetsensemedia.org/article/there-is-no-silver-bullet-for-affordable-housing-in-ward-3/#.YO9EYi1h2qk

The "Street Sense Media" piece was not exactly an endorsement of turning the Marriott site into affordable housing. It's interesting that none of the "Smart Growth" ANC commissioners in Ward 3 supported affordable housing there; they all wanted market rate housing at the site, which is exactly what will happen.

As for the piece, the chairman of Cleveland Park Smart Growth, who worked with Paul Manafort, might have used a different metaphor than "Get out of jail free card."

Typical developer play. Tease affordable housing to get more density and subsidies and then abandon the affordable housing component but keep the subsidies because the affordable housing component is "preventing the developer from getting financing on right terms." Why even bother with this silly dance? Wardman Park is on top of the red line. There should be a lot of units there, all of them built to the height limit within the next 5-10 years. There should also be affordable housing as part of the project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

Several have been razed in recent years. There was an historic house that a develop bought and "by mistake" undermined the house during renovation and got DCRA to issue an "emergency" demolition order over a weekend. The developer then got to build a brand new expanded house. More recent instances involve flipper/developers ignoring approved plans and completely modifying the structures. DC then lets it go. In San Francisco, they would make a developer tear down or off anything that wasn't built according to plans. DCRA must stand for the Developer Comfort and Rescue Administration.

Cry me a river.

[Anonymous]

I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

By historic I mean character, charm and old / un recoverable if razed because "we just don't make them like that anymore" in terms of labor and craftsmanship. Most of the homes in CP, AU Park, Tenleytown, Chevy Chase qualify - even if they haven't gone through the onerous historical process, they are certainly worth preserving. Take a walk around the tree lined streets and you will see everything from turn of the century mansions, to 1920s duplexes in various "styles" popular at the time like Spanish revival or Georgian neo classical, to craftsman cottages, to mid century ranches. The unprotected by historical status are slowly being chiseled away at by McMansion types that you typically would find in Bethesda, GGW and the vibrant density folks would like to add on to the effect by clearing the way (of these homes) to build small apartment buildings up to the sidewalk (no front lawns which they consider wasted space). This would take the neighborhood described and turn it into an innocuous anywhere USA. For an example of something that was "saved" from developers, MacLean Gardens was on the chopping block in the 70s from a previous wave of development zeal. It was saved and most people would agree it provides a ton of charming homes and condos and rentals in an entry to mid priced range. Low profile, leafy, and very neighborhoody.

The Office of Planning last year proposed McLean Gardens to be FLUMmed up to high density. OP backed away from that, but then included McLean Gardens into a "special study zone" for big density changes.

Oh dear God..is nothing sacred? Honestly one of the few things DC has going for it is different pristine (architecturally) neighborhoods with character, not just in NW but across the city. Would you FLUM up Savannah? Wish these OP would just leave it. I guess they need to justify their existence?

You are equating Savannah with....McLean Gardens??????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

Several have been razed in recent years. There was an historic house that a develop bought and "by mistake" undermined the house during renovation and got DCRA to issue an "emergency" demolition order over a weekend. The developer then got to build a brand new expanded house. More recent instances involve flipper/developers ignoring approved plans and completely modifying the structures. DC then lets it go. In San Francisco, they would make a developer tear down or off anything that wasn't built according to plans. DCRA must stand for the Developer Comfort and Rescue Administration.

The house on Woodley Road was razed "by accident" and was replaced by...a house, not condos.

Still awaiting that example of historic houses in Cleveland Park being razed for condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

Agree. It's this entitlement mentality being promoted by liberals.

I never lived in the city proper. Middle-class college graduate, but still couldn't afford it. I always lived in Maryland or Virginia suburbs and took the metro in. I didn't complain that there was nothing "affordable" in downtown DC.

Same thing with Manhattan. Middle class people can't afford to live there (only the rich who pay full fare or poor who get subsidized by taxpayers). They live in an outer borough or Long Island and take the train (or ferry) into Midtown.

What ever happened to the concept of living where you can afford?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

Agree. It's this entitlement mentality being promoted by liberals.

I never lived in the city proper. Middle-class college graduate, but still couldn't afford it. I always lived in Maryland or Virginia suburbs and took the metro in. I didn't complain that there was nothing "affordable" in downtown DC.

Same thing with Manhattan. Middle class people can't afford to live there (only the rich who pay full fare or poor who get subsidized by taxpayers). They live in an outer borough or Long Island and take the train (or ferry) into Midtown.

What ever happened to the concept of living where you can afford?

P.S. Reminds me of the debate that took place in my suburb a couple of years back. I live in an affluent part of the county, with lots of restaurants and shops, and liberals were complaining that the waiters and retail clerks couldn't afford to live close to their jobs (meaning they couldn't walk to them). When I suggested that there are plenty of garden apartments two miles down the road and they could take the bus in, some liberal said that it would be inconvenient for them and then asked snarkily "would YOU like to have to take the bus?"

Well, besides the fact that I HAVE taken the bus to work (bus to metro), what's this new deal with saying that low-income should get to live just as well as middle-income? If middle-income people don't enjoy any better lifestyle than low-income, what's the point of working yourself up to that level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

By historic I mean character, charm and old / un recoverable if razed because "we just don't make them like that anymore" in terms of labor and craftsmanship. Most of the homes in CP, AU Park, Tenleytown, Chevy Chase qualify - even if they haven't gone through the onerous historical process, they are certainly worth preserving. Take a walk around the tree lined streets and you will see everything from turn of the century mansions, to 1920s duplexes in various "styles" popular at the time like Spanish revival or Georgian neo classical, to craftsman cottages, to mid century ranches. The unprotected by historical status are slowly being chiseled away at by McMansion types that you typically would find in Bethesda, GGW and the vibrant density folks would like to add on to the effect by clearing the way (of these homes) to build small apartment buildings up to the sidewalk (no front lawns which they consider wasted space). This would take the neighborhood described and turn it into an innocuous anywhere USA. For an example of something that was "saved" from developers, MacLean Gardens was on the chopping block in the 70s from a previous wave of development zeal. It was saved and most people would agree it provides a ton of charming homes and condos and rentals in an entry to mid priced range. Low profile, leafy, and very neighborhoody.

The Office of Planning last year proposed McLean Gardens to be FLUMmed up to high density. OP backed away from that, but then included McLean Gardens into a "special study zone" for big density changes.

Oh dear God..is nothing sacred? Honestly one of the few things DC has going for it is different pristine (architecturally) neighborhoods with character, not just in NW but across the city. Would you FLUM up Savannah? Wish these OP would just leave it. I guess they need to justify their existence?

You are equating Savannah with....McLean Gardens??????

Yes, I am. It's charming and a nice neighborhood, with oodles of entry and mid-level housing. it's a great investment for folks getting in the market. Leave something good and functioning alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

Agree. It's this entitlement mentality being promoted by liberals.

I never lived in the city proper. Middle-class college graduate, but still couldn't afford it. I always lived in Maryland or Virginia suburbs and took the metro in. I didn't complain that there was nothing "affordable" in downtown DC.

Same thing with Manhattan. Middle class people can't afford to live there (only the rich who pay full fare or poor who get subsidized by taxpayers). They live in an outer borough or Long Island and take the train (or ferry) into Midtown.

What ever happened to the concept of living where you can afford?

What a concept. And those same people oppose bus lanes and transit, which would make those commutes easier for more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

Agree. It's this entitlement mentality being promoted by liberals.

I never lived in the city proper. Middle-class college graduate, but still couldn't afford it. I always lived in Maryland or Virginia suburbs and took the metro in. I didn't complain that there was nothing "affordable" in downtown DC.

Same thing with Manhattan. Middle class people can't afford to live there (only the rich who pay full fare or poor who get subsidized by taxpayers). They live in an outer borough or Long Island and take the train (or ferry) into Midtown.

What ever happened to the concept of living where you can afford?

Don’t bring political parties into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

Sanity.

Agree. It's this entitlement mentality being promoted by liberals.

I never lived in the city proper. Middle-class college graduate, but still couldn't afford it. I always lived in Maryland or Virginia suburbs and took the metro in. I didn't complain that there was nothing "affordable" in downtown DC.

Same thing with Manhattan. Middle class people can't afford to live there (only the rich who pay full fare or poor who get subsidized by taxpayers). They live in an outer borough or Long Island and take the train (or ferry) into Midtown.

What ever happened to the concept of living where you can afford?

P.S. Reminds me of the debate that took place in my suburb a couple of years back. I live in an affluent part of the county, with lots of restaurants and shops, and liberals were complaining that the waiters and retail clerks couldn't afford to live close to their jobs (meaning they couldn't walk to them). When I suggested that there are plenty of garden apartments two miles down the road and they could take the bus in, some liberal said that it would be inconvenient for them and then asked snarkily "would YOU like to have to take the bus?"

Well, besides the fact that I HAVE taken the bus to work (bus to metro), what's this new deal with saying that low-income should get to live just as well as middle-income? If middle-income people don't enjoy any better lifestyle than low-income, what's the point of working yourself up to that level?

There is no point. That’s the point of liberals. They’d like life to be easy and equal for everyone. As long as they get to make all the rules. Of course that’s fantasy.