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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

They all look fantastic. I think what PP is saying is that they would change the character of a neighborhood. Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of density, but I can admit that if you replace ten single family homes on a block and replace them with 80 units of housing in the same area, that will be a new character. Maybe not a bad character, but we cannot stand here and discuss this and not acknowledge it will be a new neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

They all look fantastic. I think what PP is saying is that they would change the character of a neighborhood. Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of density, but I can admit that if you replace ten single family homes on a block and replace them with 80 units of housing in the same area, that will be a new character. Maybe not a bad character, but we cannot stand here and discuss this and not acknowledge it will be a new neighborhood.

It was a new neighborhood when those houses were built, too. Things change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

Yup and they are quite common all over DC including in Glover Park. Though I don't think that is necessarily what is even being proposed.

The weird thing about Ward 3 is that it is a mix of some very high density housing and some very low density housing. Most of the rest of DC has neither and is a mix of rowhouses and medium size housing like the pictures in the previous post.

I'm not opposed to what is being floated (I don't believe it has been formally proposed?) but think DC would get more bang for its buck and a more immediate increase in housing with zero visual/open space impact and minimal impact on schools and parking if the city really made it a lot easier to have legal ADU's. We looked into making our basement an ADU but it is 4 inches short of the legal height requirement for portions of the basement (but not others) but the height requirement is a fire code thing that goes back to the 1920's when we didn't even have smoke detectors. I've asked around and apparently the 6 ft 8 inch basement ceiling height is common in DC. And we got a couple of bids and it would cost tens of thousands to get that 4 inches.

And DC could also figure out some financing mechanisms to help people build external ADU's/convert their garages.

I think you could potentially add thousands of housing units this way with the benefits accruing to home owners and renters and not developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

Yup and they are quite common all over DC including in Glover Park. Though I don't think that is necessarily what is even being proposed.

The weird thing about Ward 3 is that it is a mix of some very high density housing and some very low density housing. Most of the rest of DC has neither and is a mix of rowhouses and medium size housing like the pictures in the previous post.

I'm not opposed to what is being floated (I don't believe it has been formally proposed?) but think DC would get more bang for its buck and a more immediate increase in housing with zero visual/open space impact and minimal impact on schools and parking if the city really made it a lot easier to have legal ADU's. We looked into making our basement an ADU but it is 4 inches short of the legal height requirement for portions of the basement (but not others) but the height requirement is a fire code thing that goes back to the 1920's when we didn't even have smoke detectors. I've asked around and apparently the 6 ft 8 inch basement ceiling height is common in DC. And we got a couple of bids and it would cost tens of thousands to get that 4 inches.

And DC could also figure out some financing mechanisms to help people build external ADU's/convert their garages.

I think you could potentially add thousands of housing units this way with the benefits accruing to home owners and renters and not developers.

Many people excavate their basements when renovating without asking for taxpayer financing to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

They all look fantastic. I think what PP is saying is that they would change the character of a neighborhood. Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of density, but I can admit that if you replace ten single family homes on a block and replace them with 80 units of housing in the same area, that will be a new character. Maybe not a bad character, but we cannot stand here and discuss this and not acknowledge it will be a new neighborhood.

It was a new neighborhood when those houses were built, too. Things change.

I don’t think that this gentle density upzoning is possible to do in a historic district of single family houses, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

They all look fantastic. I think what PP is saying is that they would change the character of a neighborhood. Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of density, but I can admit that if you replace ten single family homes on a block and replace them with 80 units of housing in the same area, that will be a new character. Maybe not a bad character, but we cannot stand here and discuss this and not acknowledge it will be a new neighborhood.

It was a new neighborhood when those houses were built, too. Things change.

I don’t think that this gentle density upzoning is possible to do in a historic district of single family houses, is it?

Which historic district are you referring to, and what are the rules for that historic district?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Subdividing single family homes is a stated goal of the Mayors Single Family Housing review:

GOALS OF INCREASING THE
VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES IN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES

• Accommodate the District’s projected population growth without displacing residents.
• Create more opportunities for affordable living in high-opportunity neighborhoods.
• Foster a diversity of housing options—across affordability levels, building types, and/or household types—in all parts of the city.
• Address discrimination and practices that have led to segregation by race and economic status.
• Provide income streams and wealth-building opportunities for homeowners willing and able to subdivide their homes or lots to provide additional housing.
• Reduce the environmental burden of the built environment by locating more housing near transit.
• Create more walkable neighborhoods.
• Respect the character and scale of neighborhoods within a changing urban context.
• Promote good design and visual appeal of DC’s neighborhoods.

Pack ‘em in!!

Won't somebody think of the empty basements!?

Already allowed. OP and the Density Bros got the law changed several years ago to permit most homeowners to add accessory dwelling units in their homes or to convert a garage, to get extra income. Now they seeks to make it possible for developers to get extra income.

[Anonymous]

Many houses in Ward 3 have front areas-setbacks. It sounds like the Mayor's Plan allows these houses to be raised and apartment buildings built up to the sidewalk. This would in effect eliminate a lot of green space in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those look fine to me.

Yup and they are quite common all over DC including in Glover Park. Though I don't think that is necessarily what is even being proposed.

The weird thing about Ward 3 is that it is a mix of some very high density housing and some very low density housing. Most of the rest of DC has neither and is a mix of rowhouses and medium size housing like the pictures in the previous post.

I'm not opposed to what is being floated (I don't believe it has been formally proposed?) but think DC would get more bang for its buck and a more immediate increase in housing with zero visual/open space impact and minimal impact on schools and parking if the city really made it a lot easier to have legal ADU's. We looked into making our basement an ADU but it is 4 inches short of the legal height requirement for portions of the basement (but not others) but the height requirement is a fire code thing that goes back to the 1920's when we didn't even have smoke detectors. I've asked around and apparently the 6 ft 8 inch basement ceiling height is common in DC. And we got a couple of bids and it would cost tens of thousands to get that 4 inches.

And DC could also figure out some financing mechanisms to help people build external ADU's/convert their garages.

I think you could potentially add thousands of housing units this way with the benefits accruing to home owners and renters and not developers.

You are in luck. Part of the Comp Plan is a streamlining of the process to build an ADU to include expedited minor zoning variances. For example, you might be able to mitigate a low ceiling with other items that ensured adequate air flow and fire barrier between floors.

Even though accessory apartments have been
permitted in all R Zones since 2016, fewer than
50 accessory apartments have been approved
each year since the regulations were adopted.36
Incentivizing and encouraging accessory apartments
has significant potential to address the District’s
goal of adding 36,000 new housing units by 2025. In
a recent report, the Urban Land Institute explained
that if 14 percent of Rock Creek West’s 17,700 singlefamily homes added an accessory apartment, they
would meet their target of 2,500 new affordable
units.37 Barriers cited to accessory apartments are not
necessarily zoning regulations, but rather construction
costs, financing, and permitting processes. DCRA will
soon issue new guidance that will make the accessory
apartment process easier to navigate. The Mayor’s
Comp Plan Proposal recommends an assessment of
barriers to accessory apartments, as well as “a pilot
program to increase the number of affordable housing
units through accessory dwelling units”

[Anonymous]

We are in AU Park and think it would look terrible if blocks were altered as shown in the diagram. It would totally change the character of this neighborhood. Moreover, adding so many new housing units would overwhelm Janney, which despite two big renovations in 15 years is overcrowded today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many houses in Ward 3 have front areas-setbacks. It sounds like the Mayor's Plan allows these houses to be raised and apartment buildings built up to the sidewalk. This would in effect eliminate a lot of green space in the area.

Density Bros call that vibrant Urbanism. Most people call it concrete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in AU Park and think it would look terrible if blocks were altered as shown in the diagram. It would totally change the character of this neighborhood. Moreover, adding so many new housing units would overwhelm Janney, which despite two big renovations in 15 years is overcrowded today.

Yes, if there were multi-family housing in the neighborhood, then it would no longer be exclusively a single-family-housing neighborhood. But would that be a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in AU Park and think it would look terrible if blocks were altered as shown in the diagram. It would totally change the character of this neighborhood. Moreover, adding so many new housing units would overwhelm Janney, which despite two big renovations in 15 years is overcrowded today.

Yes, if there were multi-family housing in the neighborhood, then it would no longer be exclusively a single-family-housing neighborhood. But would that be a bad thing?

It would definitely begin to feel more like an urban area rather than a semi-suburban one. That would be sad. And by the way, there’s already a lot of density and hundreds of units of multi family-housing to be constructed at the Ladybird (ex Superfresh site) and along Wisconsin Ave. Why then it is also necessary to add even more density and change the character of the green residential side streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many houses in Ward 3 have front areas-setbacks. It sounds like the Mayor's Plan allows these houses to be raised and apartment buildings built up to the sidewalk. This would in effect eliminate a lot of green space in the area.

Density Bros call that vibrant Urbanism. Most people call it concrete.

"they took paradise and they made it a parking lot..la la"

Except they won't even give adequate parking...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in AU Park and think it would look terrible if blocks were altered as shown in the diagram. It would totally change the character of this neighborhood. Moreover, adding so many new housing units would overwhelm Janney, which despite two big renovations in 15 years is overcrowded today.

Yes, if there were multi-family housing in the neighborhood, then it would no longer be exclusively a single-family-housing neighborhood. But would that be a bad thing?

It would definitely begin to feel more like an urban area rather than a semi-suburban one. That would be sad. And by the way, there’s already a lot of density and hundreds of units of multi family-housing to be constructed at the Ladybird (ex Superfresh site) and along Wisconsin Ave. Why then it is also necessary to add even more density and change the character of the green residential side streets?

You live in the District of Columbia, a city with a population of 700,000. You live in an urban area.