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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

It’s looking fine, because the pandemic will be over eventually.

The mayor says the council has to pass her comprehensive plan changes to address the pandemic. Such horse shit.

The mayor and council have to find $750 million to cut out of this year's budget and even more to cut out of next year's budget. Appeasing David Alpert and the Density Goons is like No. 1,023 on DC's list of priorities right now.

Passing the Comprehensive Plan amendments will enable DC’s economy to come to roaring back and yield record levels to tax revenue. We just have to let business build, baby, build!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

It’s looking fine, because the pandemic will be over eventually.

The mayor says the council has to pass her comprehensive plan changes to address the pandemic. Such horse shit.

You are really nuts - have you been tested for Corona Virus yet?

BTW do you have a citation for your latest crazy statement?

Thanks Bob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Saying "by anybody's standards it is" does not make your statement true. DC has some very sense parts, but on the whole it is less dense than Philadelphia, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Miami when measured at the city level. If you use "populated weighted metro density," which measures how dense is the location where the average person lives within a metro area and is arguably a better measure, then we are not only less dense than those cities, but also than cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas.

Source: https://ggwash.org/view/68144/this-is-a-better-way-to-look-at-how-built-up-our-region-is

Not to mention, improvements to public transportation need to be paid for, and that requires increased ridership, which requires (surprise surprise) more density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Yes, it makes sense to me - you're saying that DC is very densely populated right now, and since cars are inappropriate in very densely populated areas, we need to get rid of the cars and move towards the kinds of transportation and land uses that are appropriate for very densely populated areas, like many other cities all over the world are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Saying "by anybody's standards it is" does not make your statement true. DC has some very sense parts, but on the whole it is less dense than Philadelphia, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Miami when measured at the city level. If you use "populated weighted metro density," which measures how dense is the location where the average person lives within a metro area and is arguably a better measure, then we are not only less dense than those cities, but also than cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas.

Source: https://ggwash.org/view/68144/this-is-a-better-way-to-look-at-how-built-up-our-region-is

Not to mention, improvements to public transportation need to be paid for, and that requires increased ridership, which requires (surprise surprise) more density.

And just because I know that you'll bitch about the source, here's the Census Bureau report that says the same things using 2010 data. See Table 3.3:

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/reports/c2010sr-01.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Yes, it makes sense to me - you're saying that DC is very densely populated right now, and since cars are inappropriate in very densely populated areas, we need to get rid of the cars and move towards the kinds of transportation and land uses that are appropriate for very densely populated areas, like many other cities all over the world are doing.

Just fix the metro/WMATA. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Yes, it makes sense to me - you're saying that DC is very densely populated right now, and since cars are inappropriate in very densely populated areas, we need to get rid of the cars and move towards the kinds of transportation and land uses that are appropriate for very densely populated areas, like many other cities all over the world are doing.

Just fix the metro/WMATA. Thank you.

No, that won't do at all. Central London will soon be one of the biggest no-car zones in the world. There's no reason why very-densely-populated DC couldn't do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Uh, what? This makes no sense. DC is obviously already very densely populated. Not sure what that has to do with cars. Perhaps you haven't noticed but we have bike lanes everywhere, even though barely anyone rides bikes here. The number of bicyclists in DC is pathetically small.

OK, DC is already very densely populated. That means there's no room for cars. As you may have noticed, cars require a lot of space. It's time to reallocate that space for use by DC's dense population. For example, turn all of the parking lots into parks.

Why so black and white PP? DC is very densely populated right now. By anybody's standards it is. We need better public transportation (WMATA you listening). What most people on this thread are saying is that DC does not need to be made MORE dense. Does that make sense to you? We are dense right now. We need better systems to accommodate the density that we have right now, and we do not need more density.

Saying "by anybody's standards it is" does not make your statement true. DC has some very sense parts, but on the whole it is less dense than Philadelphia, Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Miami when measured at the city level. If you use "populated weighted metro density," which measures how dense is the location where the average person lives within a metro area and is arguably a better measure, then we are not only less dense than those cities, but also than cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas.

Source: https://ggwash.org/view/68144/this-is-a-better-way-to-look-at-how-built-up-our-region-is

Not to mention, improvements to public transportation need to be paid for, and that requires increased ridership, which requires (surprise surprise) more density.

So this is a Density Bros standard technique for making an argument. Cherry picking data and trying to pass it off as pertinent to the argument at hand. Unless you are advocating for a retrocession and having DC revert to Maryland (a discussion for another thread) DC has 68.3 square miles of land. Not the 5,600 square miles that your Density Dude used to make his point that DC METRO area can use greater density. Of course if you add a bunch of suburban farm land into the equation you are going to lower the CURRENT density numbers of DC.

This thread is talking about DC wards and how the new Comprehensive Plan is looking to upsize DC's Density. That is people within the 68.3 square miles of land we have now. We are not getting the chunk we gave to Northern Virginia back and we are not retroceding to MD in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Your GGW article which you are referencing a more accurate means for measuring population density is referring to the Greater Washington Area. An are 100 times larger than DC. You are not even in the same realm as the discussion the people in this thread are discussing.

[Anonymous]

Is anybody else getting annoyed about the "Density Bro" PP's total erasure of the many women in DC who advocate for the stuff the PP opposes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your GGW article which you are referencing a more accurate means for measuring population density is referring to the Greater Washington Area. An are 100 times larger than DC. You are not even in the same realm as the discussion the people in this thread are discussing.

If you read the article, you would understand why the fact that the DC metro is much larger than DC is mostly not relevant to the discussion. Population weighted density measures weight by the places where people actually live, so empty Census tracts don't contribute to the average, and sparsely populated parts of the metro contribute in proportion to their population. No measure is perfect, but most people who study the matter prefer this measure because isn't affected by variation in the extent to which cities were able to annex land over time.

But as I as also stated, the figures based on just the District boundaries look awfully similar. DC is less dense than NY, Philly, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. Not to mention multiple ostensibly suburban jurisdictions in New Jersey.

Source: https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2018/05/cleveland_is_nations_27th_most.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anybody else getting annoyed about the "Density Bro" PP's total erasure of the many women in DC who advocate for the stuff the PP opposes?

“Density Bros” also can be female or whatever, just like Bernie Bros. Myopic arrogance, ageism and nastiness knows no gender boundaries.