Reply to Bethesda Row after the Purple Line Opens?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Bethesda Row after the Purple Line Opens?"

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]Does anyone know what will become of the Sidwell property once the lower school moves into DC? It would be lovely if it could be repurposed into a pocket park. Would Bethesda bid on it for this? The one thing I can see as an outsider that Bethesda needs is more parks.[/quote]

Yes with all the new housing and increased density in the pipeline, more parkland should be a priority. I hope the county buys it. [/quote]

Yup! Density leaves more room for parks![/quote]

Uh oh, the YIMBY MoCo’s are checking in, I guess.[/quote]

Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate the AG reserve.[/quote]

Most don’t, we assume. But in Prince William County, the housing advocates pressured the board there into getting rid of the Rural Crescent. Now the whole county will be marred by untamed sprawl. So much for access to the countryside for the benefit of all. Housing advocates in general are [b]anti urban growth boundaries[/b] which is unfortunate. The model should be Europe’s dense cities and lots of healthy open space. But surprisingly many if not most housing advocates here are anti rural and anti parkland, seeing those areas as playgrounds for the wealthy. Over in Portland Oregon, where the urban growth boundary was invented, housing advocates have long favored eliminating it. Locally here in DC, I’ve heard advocates talk about what a waste of space Rock Creek Park is when it could be more housing. People seriously need to be educated on the benefits of open space and tree canopy coverage. It shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp. [/quote]
Housing advocates are in favor of reducing the costs to build housing. Preventing greenfield housing development increases the cost of infill development. It’s that simple. If you want more infill development then you should favor removing restrictions on greenfield development.[/quote]

Sadly, I have yet to meet a housing advocate (in the U.S.) who is anti-sprawl on greenfield sites in the ever-expanding, soulless exurbs. We should simply look to Europe for healthy solutions for all residents, with a balance of open space, preserving agricultural land close to the city, and creating dense urban cores. And with the dense areas connected by rapid transit. [b]The economic model they use can work in the U.S. It just takes some vision and initiative. [/b][/quote]

That's funny, because ALL of the housing advocates I know (in the U.S.) are anti-sprawl on greenfield sites, and I know a lot of housing advocates (in the U.S.).[/quote]

To your point, “anti-sprawl” is the mainstream position among housing advocates in Montgomery County and it is the official policy in the general plan. [/quote]
This is true, but “anti-sprawl” is also a policy that favors less and more expensive housing. The Montgomery County “housing advocates” are not focused on nor care about housing. They are grinding other ideological axes.[/quote]

That is one explanation. The other explanation is that they care about housing but don’t understand it well enough to realize that their set of ideas caused the housing crisis. [/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