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

[Anonymous]

We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It got a sticker plastered on its windshield (beginning of pandemic) that said "Roads were not built for cars".

Nor were roads built for those eff-ing little electric scooters. Idiots who have apparently never used such a thing can’t (or won’t) control them on sidewalks where pedestrians are riding and then they also ride them on roads, darting and weaving, with the driver helmet-less and oblivious to warning sounds because he’s wearing earbuds.. Then the myopic little twits just drop them, blocking the sidewalk, even a crosswalk ramp, or someone’s driveway, or they plant them on top of flowers in the tree box. Kudos to my neighbor who heaved a scooter abandoned in front of his walk into a dumpster.

Huh. When I encounter a scooter that's blocking the sidewalk, what I do is move it to the side.

I agree that scooters don't belong on the sidewalk. But people are going to ride scooters on the sidewalk when it's not safe to ride in the road due to people driving cars. On every multi-lane road in the city, the city should convert one lane on each side to protected lanes for people on bikes and scooters.

So finally! A cars/traffic solution is proposed by the Density Bro/as. Take Wisconsin Ave and Connecticut Ave and any other four lane road and turn the outside lanes into bike lanes. Cars will get annoyed at the further restricted traffic and the owners will sell their vehicles replacing them with e-bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to go back a few pages and look at the plans. The apartments could be be built up to the street, over existing green space. What is confusing?

Building multi-family housing in the city is anti-environmental because it will reduce the number of yards that belong to single-family-detached houses with yards.

Oh wow.

Hard to tell if we density bros are arguing with one idiot or two idiots in this thread.

There is no proposal to change the cities setback or rear/side yard requirements on commercial or residential properties and there are also no proposals to change the cities public space laws.

So sorry but no greenspace is going to be lost to build multi-family housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It got a sticker plastered on its windshield (beginning of pandemic) that said "Roads were not built for cars".

Nor were roads built for those eff-ing little electric scooters. Idiots who have apparently never used such a thing can’t (or won’t) control them on sidewalks where pedestrians are riding and then they also ride them on roads, darting and weaving, with the driver helmet-less and oblivious to warning sounds because he’s wearing earbuds.. Then the myopic little twits just drop them, blocking the sidewalk, even a crosswalk ramp, or someone’s driveway, or they plant them on top of flowers in the tree box. Kudos to my neighbor who heaved a scooter abandoned in front of his walk into a dumpster.

Huh. When I encounter a scooter that's blocking the sidewalk, what I do is move it to the side.

I agree that scooters don't belong on the sidewalk. But people are going to ride scooters on the sidewalk when it's not safe to ride in the road due to people driving cars. On every multi-lane road in the city, the city should convert one lane on each side to protected lanes for people on bikes and scooters.

So finally! A cars/traffic solution is proposed by the Density Bro/as. Take Wisconsin Ave and Connecticut Ave and any other four lane road and turn the outside lanes into bike lanes. Cars will get annoyed at the further restricted traffic and the owners will sell their vehicles replacing them with e-bikes.

You think you are being clever (and really it does help to actually be clever when you are trying to be cute like this) but in fact people make different choices based on what is easiest and safest.

Places that have built great infrastructure for walking and biking in fact do see big increases in walking and biking and similar drops in driving. So the idiot(s) on this thread who is stammering around clumsily making the case that there is something greener about the status quo presumably would be advocating for fewer people driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“It got a sticker plastered on its windshield (beginning of pandemic) that said "Roads were not built for cars".

Nor were roads built for those eff-ing little electric scooters. Idiots who have apparently never used such a thing can’t (or won’t) control them on sidewalks where pedestrians are riding and then they also ride them on roads, darting and weaving, with the driver helmet-less and oblivious to warning sounds because he’s wearing earbuds.. Then the myopic little twits just drop them, blocking the sidewalk, even a crosswalk ramp, or someone’s driveway, or they plant them on top of flowers in the tree box. Kudos to my neighbor who heaved a scooter abandoned in front of his walk into a dumpster.

Huh. When I encounter a scooter that's blocking the sidewalk, what I do is move it to the side.

I agree that scooters don't belong on the sidewalk. But people are going to ride scooters on the sidewalk when it's not safe to ride in the road due to people driving cars. On every multi-lane road in the city, the city should convert one lane on each side to protected lanes for people on bikes and scooters.

So finally! A cars/traffic solution is proposed by the Density Bro/as. Take Wisconsin Ave and Connecticut Ave and any other four lane road and turn the outside lanes into bike lanes. Cars will get annoyed at the further restricted traffic and the owners will sell their vehicles replacing them with e-bikes.

Exactly. Wonderful idea. Cities all over the world have been doing it. DC should too. People should have mobility choices. You may still choose to drive if you want to, meanwhile other people have the option of choosing other means to get around safely and conveniently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

[Anonymous]

Quick Question. If the Mayors stated goal is to build 36,000 new units of housing across DC and the Rock Creek West share of that is 2,500 units and as stated at some point yesterday current Tenleytown only building encompasses 2,000 new housing units, why are we changing the Comp Plan? We only need an additional 500 units of housing WOTP. That is more than accounted for in Connecticut Ave projects already in place. We can literally not change anything and meet all of the Mayors requirements with already approved projects.

The mayor’s plan to build 36,000 new units will require a
significant amount of capital. The all-in cost (land, design,
construction, etc.) of developing any rental unit in the District
is about $400,000 to $500,000 per unit based on panel interviews and the panel’s mixed-income case study. At $400,000,
producing the units called for by the plan would require about
$14.2 billion. For Rock Creek West only, assuming a cost
of $400,000 and 2,500 units, the capital required would be
about $1 billion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to go back a few pages and look at the plans. The apartments could be be built up to the street, over existing green space. What is confusing?

Building multi-family housing in the city is anti-environmental because it will reduce the number of yards that belong to single-family-detached houses with yards.

Oh wow.

Hard to tell if we density bros are arguing with one idiot or two idiots in this thread.

There is no proposal to change the cities setback or rear/side yard requirements on commercial or residential properties and there are also no proposals to change the cities public space laws.

So sorry but no greenspace is going to be lost to build multi-family housing.

Hmmm...This is simply not accurate. As soon as you upzone a house from SFH to multi family (through gentle densification) the setback can be changed. I am not sure that you have actually read any of the source documents that you are talking about. You can actually just read through the last five pages or so as everything appears to have been recapped.

You must be the same person shouting on page after page 'Give me one example of Single Family Zoning under threat to be changed'. The Mayor has provided thousands of examples of single family homes whos zoning can be changed so now whoever is arguing on this thread is changing the argument to greenspace. Greenspace by the way changes as percentage of lot which is water permeable is allowed to change.

Try reading a little instead of shouting sound bites that may have been valid at one point, but no longer are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to go back a few pages and look at the plans. The apartments could be be built up to the street, over existing green space. What is confusing?

Building multi-family housing in the city is anti-environmental because it will reduce the number of yards that belong to single-family-detached houses with yards.

Oh wow.

Hard to tell if we density bros are arguing with one idiot or two idiots in this thread.

There is no proposal to change the cities setback or rear/side yard requirements on commercial or residential properties and there are also no proposals to change the cities public space laws.

So sorry but no greenspace is going to be lost to build multi-family housing.

Hmmm...This is simply not accurate. As soon as you upzone a house from SFH to multi family (through gentle densification) the setback can be changed. I am not sure that you have actually read any of the source documents that you are talking about. You can actually just read through the last five pages or so as everything appears to have been recapped.

You must be the same person shouting on page after page 'Give me one example of Single Family Zoning under threat to be changed'. The Mayor has provided thousands of examples of single family homes whos zoning can be changed so now whoever is arguing on this thread is changing the argument to greenspace. Greenspace by the way changes as percentage of lot which is water permeable is allowed to change.

Try reading a little instead of shouting sound bites that may have been valid at one point, but no longer are.

Nope you are wrong.

First of all you changed what I've been writing which has been to point out that no single family zones have been proposed for upzoning which remains true - no proposal has been sent anywhere to change the zoning on a single family lot anywhere in DC.

With regards to what has been floated, but not actually proposed, to allow more than single family homes in some zones is a change to the function of buildings in those zones not the form.

You are conflating, no doubt purposely because it suits your purpose here to scare everyone, form and function and suggesting changes that are not proposed.

Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quick Question. If the Mayors stated goal is to build 36,000 new units of housing across DC and the Rock Creek West share of that is 2,500 units and as stated at some point yesterday current Tenleytown only building encompasses 2,000 new housing units, why are we changing the Comp Plan? We only need an additional 500 units of housing WOTP. That is more than accounted for in Connecticut Ave projects already in place. We can literally not change anything and meet all of the Mayors requirements with already approved projects.

The mayor’s plan to build 36,000 new units will require a
significant amount of capital. The all-in cost (land, design,
construction, etc.) of developing any rental unit in the District
is about $400,000 to $500,000 per unit based on panel interviews and the panel’s mixed-income case study. At $400,000,
producing the units called for by the plan would require about
$14.2 billion. For Rock Creek West only, assuming a cost
of $400,000 and 2,500 units, the capital required would be
about $1 billion.

This is an excellent question. I suspect that the official answer is that the mayor also has set personal “affordable housing” goals. As she isn’t willing to spend money for the District to build affordable housing directly including in Ward 3, she is relying instead on building more market rate housing, through “inclusive zoning” for enough IZ housing to trickle down to reach her affordable goal. (IZ isn’t really affordable housing but that is a different issue). Because the mayor doesn’t want to push her developer cronies very hard, the percentage of IZ in any project is only 8 percent, at most 10 percent. So now to reach her “affordable housing” goal, Ward 3 will have to build a lot more than her stated number of new market rate units in Rick Creek West. The mayor is moving the goal posts now.

But at the end of the day, it’s not really about affordable housing. It’s really about opening up Rock Creek West and Ward 3 in particular for more intensive, market rate development for her political funders. They want access to “high opportunity areas” in OP’s lexicon.

[Anonymous]

Nope you are wrong.

First of all you changed what I've been writing which has been to point out that no single family zones have been proposed for upzoning which remains true - no proposal has been sent anywhere to change the zoning on a single family lot anywhere in DC.

With regards to what has been floated, but not actually proposed, to allow more than single family homes in some zones is a change to the function of buildings in those zones not the form.

You are conflating, no doubt purposely because it suits your purpose here to scare everyone, form and function and suggesting changes that are not proposed.

Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?

You are correct. NOTHING has been changed at this point. However, all of this has been proposed through the COMP Plan. So I suppose you will always be correct, until it is passed and then you won't be correct. But then it will be too late I suppose.

What is being conflated?

"Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?" What? I actually have no idea what you are saying here. Not to worry. DCUM editing is not easy. If you are asking again for an example of how single family zoned housing has been proposed to be changed, you are playing a semantics game because we all know that it has not been changed. What has changed is another set of rules that CAN be applied on top of single family zoning which creates the impact that the Mayor wants WITHOUT changing the term Single Family Zoning.

Maybe I misunderstood what you typed. I am not sure. It was not clear to me.

[Anonymous]

The crux of the Mayors argument:

THE IMPLICATIONS ON AFFORDABILITY,
EQUITY, & THE ENVIRONMENT OF
ALLOWING A VARIETY OF HOUSING
TYPES IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES

Increasing missing middle housing within single-family
zones will have significant equity, affordability, and
environmental impacts. Equity and housing affordability
are inextricably linked, because where a person can
afford to live impacts their access to opportunity. The
District’s legacy of discriminatory and exclusionary
land use decisions has contributed to persistent racial
and economic segregation. As a result, access to
opportunity varies considerably across different areas
of the District, including across different single-family
zones. Therefore, single-family neighborhoods need
to be examined not as a singular neighborhood
type, but in the context of their area. Allowing for
additional housing types in high-opportunity, highcost single-family neighborhoods and single-family
neighborhoods near high-capacity transit will begin
to address inequity, provide additional affordable
housing options, and connect more residents with
opportunity. Furthermore, if homeowners in singlefamily zones choose to add additional housing to their
lot, it could provide them with an income stream that
may enable them to remain in their homes and build
wealth. From an environmental perspective, allowing
more housing in single-family zones can help to reduce
the environmental burden of the built environment, by
promoting transit usage and encouraging housing
types with a smaller energy footprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

Bicyclists are 100 percent delusional about the risks they are taking. If you ride a bicycle in DC that is the most likely way you will die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

So if i wander out onto the Beltway on a skateboard, and I get killed, it's the car driver's fault, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

So if i wander out onto the Beltway on a skateboard, and I get killed, it's the car driver's fault, right?

Who said anything about fault?

The point is that cars are the danger. No cars, no danger.