Reply to The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The DC police union position against the Connecticut Avenue bike lane proposal apparently has prompted WABA to rush the release of a “Coalition Letter Regarding Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Project” in support of bike lanes.  What’s noteworthy about the “coalition” should have seemed so obvious in hindsight, the active role of Greater Greater Washington and the various development lobby groups in the echo chamber in pushing the construction of the bike lanes.  It’s clear that the Option C bike lane plan is not just about alternative transportation options, it’s a necessary ingredient, an enabling condition for the development lobby to realize its plans to redevelop all of Connecticut Avenue from the Taft Bridge up to Chevy Chase Circle as a much taller, denser, busier urban corridor.  Maybe that’s even the primary reason driving bike lanes forward.  One challenge that DC real estate developers and investors face is that Connecticut Ave and Ward 3 in general lack the “vibe” or coolness factor of U Street and other hot neighborhoods to attract the Millennial and Gen Z renters and purchasers that they desperately need.  They believe that bike lanes will help to market the Connecticut corridor to this demographic.  And just as bike lanes can help to support upzoned, upmarket development along the entire length of Connecticut, much more development is necessary to provide more bike riders to justify the cost and disruption and impact of Option C.  That’s the real deal - bike lanes for greater, greater development.

[/quote]

Woodley Park and Cleveland Park are already historic districts, they aren't going to be significantly 're-made"
Van Ness is already dense.

I am a neighbor. I am not part of a "developer lobby" or a "bike lobby" but I support Option C because Connecticut Avenue is woefully unsafe. So, sure, call me part of some cabal. It makes me, and people like me, resent you even more, because not only are you trying to belittle MY voice in the community, but you want to maintain a status quo that is dangerous for people like me, your neighbor, in getting around to the shops and businesses I would like to support.[/quote]

You haven’t been paying attention.  The Connecticut Ave Development Guidelines from the D.C. government, which likely will be buttressed by upzoning, more than double the allowable height in the Cleveland Park historic district on Connecticut Avenue.  So a district of one and two floor historic buildings could be topped by infill construction up to 90 feet in total - nine floors.  That’s a rather significant remaking.[/quote]

So you are ignoring all the 7-10 story buildings that already line the avenue. How convenient.[/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