Reply to Removal of development cap in downtown Bethesda

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Removal of development cap in downtown Bethesda"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I do actually want to turn Bethesda into Paris and raze all detached SFH. the fact that there are detached SFH so close to DC and density starts just by pike and Rose is criminal urban planning. Just purely captured by the rich[/quote]
You apparently don't understand a lot of things. First that Bethesda is not a central city. And second, the density in the outskirts of Paris has lots of detached SFHs.

Like you have literally no idea what you’re talking about. [/quote]

We're talking about the parts of Paris close to the center that are moderately tall...
Haussman scale. Six stories.

Not the distant Shady Grove type parts of Paris or La Defense.

The part that everyone likes and wants to visit.[/quote]
You seem confused about geography. La Defense is the Rosslyn/Tysons of Paris. Everything that right outside the Periph, including Neuilly, Saint-Denis, etc are about the same distance from central Paris as downtown Bethesda is to the Capitol building. It is not hard to just go to Google Maps and look at these places. What you will see is basically the same built environment as Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc. Lots of park apartments with big parking lots near transit and lots of attached and detached SFHs with yards.

It disturbs me that the whole planning/urbanist push is based on false understandings of places you are trying to emulate.[/quote]

PP. I'm not confused about geography.  What I am saying is that I would prefer Bethesda to look like central Paris or low-skyline center cities and not sk*scraper clusters.  It  doesn't matter how dense the analogous 15 miles from central Paris neighborhoods are. I don't have my own math on what the density should be, just a hope for what it could look like.  Wealthy areas can suboptimize density for aesthetics.  Clearly that is a choice.  So I don't think I have false understandings.  Just preferences.

I am not a city planner or an urbanist.  I am a consumer of residential space with experience living in 14 story apartments, townhouses, and 3-5 bedroom SFH's talking about what kind of town looks good and has a nice vibe vs. a jumble of tall ugly mirrorred glass buildings. I'm not even anti-sk*scraper or tall building.  I previously said I lived in a tall building at Grosvenor and it was nice looking, convenient to Metro, and had attractive green space.

Whoever you are, you've gone way too deep into critiquing my Paris analogies and complaining about planning terminology. So what are your ideas and analogies for a better-looking, better-functioning Bethesda?

I literally can't even afford to own a house there but I once wanted to so badly that I shaped my life choices around that dream.  That's the reason I even bother with this thread.  You lucky people who can afford to live there are botching the job as planners, businesspeople, and citizens.  Things shouldn't get worse over 30 years in a wealthy area![/quote]
How hard is it to understand that Bethesda should not have the density of a central city because it is not a central city?[/quote]

Bethesda is a central city. It's not THE central city, but it is A central city in a polycentric urban area.[/quote]
You have lost the plot. Bethesda is an urbanized bedroom community.[/quote]

An "urbanized bedroom community" is a city.

I know there are longtime residents of Montgomery County who are unable to understand that Bethesda is now a city, but in reality, it's not 1974 anymore, or even 1994. It's 2024, and Bethesda is a city.[/quote]
You are making up foes who you think are you are fighting against. Your foe is Planning. Everyone in Bethesda would love more jobs downtown, because the school overcrowding issues are driving parents insane.[/quote]

My foes, such as I have foes rather than people I disagree with, are people who think that there shouldn't be more tall buildings in Bethesda. Oh, and also people who think there isn't enough parking in Bethesda.[/quote]
Oh god you are tedious. You literally just imagined that “longtime residents” were stupid and did not understand the world like you did. Is it a wonder why people oppose your preferred policies when you talk about them like that?[/quote]

There certainly are people who disagree with the positions I have, but it's not because of stuff I post anonymously on DCUM. Or even because of stuff I say non-anonymously in real life. I promise.

There are also people who agree with the positions I have, but here also, it's not because of stuff I post anonymously on DCUM. Or even because of stuff I say non-anonymously in real life. I promise.[/quote]

DP.  [b]Make sure[/b] that the infrastructure -- schools, parks, etc. -- and funding for such are addressed in the same breath as increased densities such that there is no degradation of service levels.  You then might find a higher proportion of the audience to be receptive.[/quote]

I can't do that. I am not able to do that. It is not possible for me to do that.

If those are your priorities, then you should advocate for them. Just like I advocate for my priorities.[/quote]

OK.  I expect the bulk of residents to maintain an opinion different from those with advocacy priorities that don't seek to ensure that levels of public services are not degraded.  I don't expect that planning or the council will follow that popular sentiment, of course, as their priorities clearly are elsewhere, rather than in line with interests of current residents.[/quote]

I think you consistently underestimate popular sentiment in favor of housing.[/quote]

I'm sure there is broad popular support for housing in the abstract.  I think you overestimate popular sentiment in favor of the specifics, here, especially among those residing in the area impacted by the associated decisions.[/quote]

It's not surprising that many current homeowners in the immediate area oppose changes to the immediate area. Do their opinions matter? Yes, of course they do, exactly as much - no more, no less - than everybody else's opinions.

How many renters in Montgomery County do you know? How do they feel about it?

How many condo owners in Montgomery County do you know? How do they feel about it?[/quote]

You intimate that there should be no greater consideration for the opinions of residents of an area most directly impacted by a decision than there is for residents in the rest of the county.

You also intimate that current renting residents (vs. "homeowners," which is a terminology change you employed where my comments referred to "residents") would not wish for the same development guardrails espoused by homeowners to ensure infrastructure and services are not degraded.

In each case, I would disagree.  In the latter case, I would go so far as to say that prospective residents, as well, would share the concerns about infrastructure and services.[/quote]

How many renters do you know? One third of households in the county rent.[/quote]

As just mentioned, renting does not prevent residents, current or prospective, from wanting to ensure that infrastructure and services are not degraded.[/quote]

How many renters do you know? One third of households in the county rent. Instead of assuming what renters want, much less purporting to speak for renters, consider letting renters speaking for themselves - and listening to what they say.[/quote]

Reiterating a red herring/ad hominem question does nothing to detract from the idea that those renting also would want to avoid having infrastructure and services degraded.

It would be one thing if direct evidence was offered that a preponderance of residents, owners and renters alike, [i]did not[/i] want development to come with ensurance of such.  Instead, and rather than providing an alternate critiqueable rationale, we see nothing of the sort and an attempt at innuendo.

Indeed, let there be a forum for those residents to provide input at meaningful stages in county decision-making -- with full information widely disseminated as ideas are being formulated.[/quote]

You are using very many words, but the tl;dr version seems to be: you do not know any renters, but you nonetheless assume that renters want what you want (and don't want what you want).[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics