anyone else dislike Greater Greater Washington?

[Anonymous]

Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

Really? How many women with kids and daycare drop=offs blog there? Low-income workers who drive in from the suburbs? Disabled people reliant on cars? Section 8 voucher users?

Yeah, that's a pretty laughable claim. It's almost entirely a small group of entitled white people who insist they know best for everyone.

Alpert and many GGW contributors owning cars yet publishing article after article on the evils of car ownership is the essence of hypocrisy. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

they do not publish articles about the evils of cars. I can't believe ho many of you are spouting off but clearly don't read the blog daily. I am assuming you get your info only from the cleveland park list serves. thats the equivalent to being a fox news junkie. urbanism allows a lot of families to be car lite. We live near a metro and have a car. We use it maybe once a week on the weekend, and thats usually to get out of town. a LOT of families could be like this and would love to be like this. Its not an either/or proposition like the NIMBY "fake news" nuts would have you believe.

And that's the problem with GGW: It writes about how everyone should be "allowed" to do certain things, as if we need to ask GGW for permission. Who is David Alpert or anyone else on that site to say what anyone should be "allowed" to do?

Luckily, the GGW smart-growth echo chamber is quite small.

Well for one they are citizens, so if there is a place where its not legal to bike they can advocate to allow it, or if there is a place where you cannot use transit because there is none, they can support that. But mostly they support things to make it easier to walk bike and use transit, so I should not have used the word "allow".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW thinks everyone should live in places like NoMA ah no thank you

GGW doesn't "think" anything.

It a blog about urban issues in DC with a wide range of different contributors, some of whom disagree with one another.

Many of the contributors do have expertise in the areas they write about though and almost all are personally involved in the issues they post about.

What do you care anyhow? Don't read it if you aren't interested.

nope they are the poster child for "smart growth" which is making mini manhattans at every metro stop in the region

I care because plenty of people in government actually take them seriously

It actually makes sense to have mini-manhattans around each of the of the Metro stations. The region has invested billions of dollars in metro, why not focus population density where it is easiest to use it and provide a car-free option to residents in the region.

If you want to live a car-dependent lifestyle, no one is stopping you.

I actually agree with them that it makes sense to upzone near transit. The problem is even if you did that you would still need hundreds of thousands of places for people to live and infrastructure (Cars/roads) to get them from point A to point B. GGW is like a philsopher who doesn't understand their perfect world utopia is not realistic. The fact that Albert has a car is just the icing on the cake.

GGW does not call for there to be no roads. Straw man.

The PP didn't say it did. Straw man.

("Straw Man" is a GGW commenter favorite for when they get called out on their factually dubious urbanist BS, just as "NIMBY" is their favorite way to insult anyone who merely has a difference of opinion. Guarantee this person is an Alpert sycophant.)

The problem is even if you did that you would still need hundreds of thousands of places for people to live and infrastructure (Cars/roads) to get them from point A to point B.

PP said the problem with GGW is that you would still need roads. If GGW is not calling for no roads, I don't see how that is a problem. PP implied GGW wants no roads, which is, yes, a straw man. And its thrown around a lot because the people who troll GGW (including ON GGW) so often use straw men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all "gee whiz!!" about "transit" without being actually willing to address the issues that face people trying to drop off kids, get to work, and get home again at a decent hour.

They are focused on policy, not on giving personal advice. Fact is if we had more and better transit, and more housing near it, more people would use it, even if many would still drive.

No, the advocate policies that would make life actively more difficult for people who have to drive. Also they advocate for policies that clearly favor the gee-whiz crowd over other constituencies -- the bike lane funeral parking is a great example of that, as well as the damn fool street car.

Some policies they support would make driving a little more difficult though many would not. And BTW, keeping funerals out of bike lanes would help drivers, by keeping bike riders IN the bike lanes.

As for the street car, the main objection to that was that because it had no seperate lane, it would not be faster than the buses - no separate lane precisely because VDOT was protecting the interests of drivers. Now that ArlCo has taken over Col Pike from VDOT, perhaps they will establish bus only lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

Really? How many women with kids and daycare drop=offs blog there? Low-income workers who drive in from the suburbs? Disabled people reliant on cars? Section 8 voucher users?

Yeah, that's a pretty laughable claim. It's almost entirely a small group of entitled white people who insist they know best for everyone.

Alpert and many GGW contributors owning cars yet publishing article after article on the evils of car ownership is the essence of hypocrisy. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

they do not publish articles about the evils of cars. I can't believe ho many of you are spouting off but clearly don't read the blog daily. I am assuming you get your info only from the cleveland park list serves. thats the equivalent to being a fox news junkie. urbanism allows a lot of families to be car lite. We live near a metro and have a car. We use it maybe once a week on the weekend, and thats usually to get out of town. a LOT of families could be like this and would love to be like this. Its not an either/or proposition like the NIMBY "fake news" nuts would have you believe.

And that's the problem with GGW: It writes about how everyone should be "allowed" to do certain things, as if we need to ask GGW for permission. Who is David Alpert or anyone else on that site to say what anyone should be "allowed" to do?

Luckily, the GGW smart-growth echo chamber is quite small.

But it is very well funded (by development interests) and well organized.

There are well organized and well funded NIMBYs all over the region, so I am glad GGW is there to offset that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

Really? How many women with kids and daycare drop=offs blog there? Low-income workers who drive in from the suburbs? Disabled people reliant on cars? Section 8 voucher users?

Yeah, that's a pretty laughable claim. It's almost entirely a small group of entitled white people who insist they know best for everyone.

Alpert and many GGW contributors owning cars yet publishing article after article on the evils of car ownership is the essence of hypocrisy. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

they do not publish articles about the evils of cars. I can't believe ho many of you are spouting off but clearly don't read the blog daily. I am assuming you get your info only from the cleveland park list serves. thats the equivalent to being a fox news junkie. urbanism allows a lot of families to be car lite. We live near a metro and have a car. We use it maybe once a week on the weekend, and thats usually to get out of town. a LOT of families could be like this and would love to be like this. Its not an either/or proposition like the NIMBY "fake news" nuts would have you believe.

And that's the problem with GGW: It writes about how everyone should be "allowed" to do certain things, as if we need to ask GGW for permission. Who is David Alpert or anyone else on that site to say what anyone should be "allowed" to do?

Luckily, the GGW smart-growth echo chamber is quite small.

But it is very well funded (by development interests) and well organized.

There are well organized and well funded NIMBYs all over the region, so I am glad GGW is there to offset that.

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Alpert lives like three blocks from the Dupont Metro yet still feels the need to own a car (he freely admits this). This would be fine -- to eacha his own -- except for the fact that GGW articles routinely pillory people who feel the need to own cars even when they live in walkable neighborhoods. But Alpert being one of those people is conveniently forgotten. He's a massive hypocrite and fraud.

I really don't think that is the case - David freely admits to owning and using a car as do many GGW contributors and commentators. So I think that pretty much sinks the hypocrite and fraud arguments.

To the extent that "GGW" advocates for anything it advocates for a more livable city and region which means a bunch of things among them better use of scarce public space, better design of various things, better alternates to driving alone and better governance. If those policies lead to people who own cars driving less that is a big win for everyone - particularly people who still drive.

In any case you act like GGW is the Matrix - that it is this massive unknowable force coming to take away your car. It is a blog which publishes a pretty diverse bunch of viewpoints.

If you had something intelligent to say they might publish it too.

Really? How many women with kids and daycare drop=offs blog there? Low-income workers who drive in from the suburbs? Disabled people reliant on cars? Section 8 voucher users?

Yeah, that's a pretty laughable claim. It's almost entirely a small group of entitled white people who insist they know best for everyone.

Alpert and many GGW contributors owning cars yet publishing article after article on the evils of car ownership is the essence of hypocrisy. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

they do not publish articles about the evils of cars. I can't believe ho many of you are spouting off but clearly don't read the blog daily. I am assuming you get your info only from the cleveland park list serves. thats the equivalent to being a fox news junkie. urbanism allows a lot of families to be car lite. We live near a metro and have a car. We use it maybe once a week on the weekend, and thats usually to get out of town. a LOT of families could be like this and would love to be like this. Its not an either/or proposition like the NIMBY "fake news" nuts would have you believe.

And that's the problem with GGW: It writes about how everyone should be "allowed" to do certain things, as if we need to ask GGW for permission. Who is David Alpert or anyone else on that site to say what anyone should be "allowed" to do?

Luckily, the GGW smart-growth echo chamber is quite small.

But it is very well funded (by development interests) and well organized.

There are well organized and well funded NIMBYs all over the region, so I am glad GGW is there to offset that.

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers.

Do you actually read the blog? Only a small percentage of the articles even discuss specific developments - many more articles are about policy, parks and transportation proposals.

I just skimmed the website and the most recent article that is even about a controversial re-development proposal was from May 8th and is about a hospital not a residential proposal.

The most recent actual GGW piece about a proposal for building housing is dated April 18th! There are far more articles about parks, bike lanes and affordable housing.

Those developers apparently aren't getting much for their money.

[Anonymous]

Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

+1000

[Anonymous]

Is this thread a troll ad for GGW? What, their clicks were down this month? Let it wither away from lack of attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread a troll ad for GGW? What, their clicks were down this month? Let it wither away from lack of attention.

??? Sounds like you have been paying attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread a troll ad for GGW? What, their clicks were down this month? Let it wither away from lack of attention.

It used to be just Alpert blogging. Now it has a bunch of editors, some paid staff, and is part of multiple local dialogs, and is even quoted regularly by Matt Yglesias of Vox. Its thriving. They sure don't need clicks from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

+1000

why don't we just remove all the roads while we were are at

do you people have any basic understanding of how people get from point A to point B in this region

freaking morons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

+1000

why don't we just remove all the roads while we were are at

do you people have any basic understanding of how people get from point A to point B in this region

freaking morons

Actually in DC a majority of DC residents get to work via a means other than a car. So taking a 6 lane DC road and converting some of that space for bikes would be a benefit to the many people who bike every day in DC, many of whom are DC residents.

BTW more people biking means fewer people driving, which is good for the people still driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

and remove a lane or two for traffic on Connecticut Ave. Where will it go? To Reno/34th? That's stupidity.