Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

It would be better to tear down all the SFH housing in NW and turn them into rowhouses.

Why not drain the Anacostia River and build houses there? We only need water from the Potomac River.

NYC is more dense- why hasn’t Central Park been demolished?!

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

Totally. Let’s put some projects where trees once stood. 100% ami projects. We don’t need green space.

Could develop the Rock Creek golf course into housing

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't' EHN or Bowser asked the Feds to do a land swap or to purchase some portion of it for housing then??? How would that be a bad idea?

It is a hard place to build- expensive, it drain a large area of dc, the sewer over flow in to the creek- have to rework the sewers, there are endangered species in the park- one found no where else, it has major elevation changes, it has a major parkway, etc. Now add in the neighbors and supporters of the park who would fight any development and it is federal land.

You would have a better case to develop the mall.

It's not a bad idea. It's an awful idea. The preservation of parkland has both an immense value intrinsic value that cannot be replicated else in where in the District (e.g., public health, recreation). The land would also be extremely expensive to develop given the topography and propensity to flood.

There is plenty of land on either side of Rock Creek Park and throughout the District/MSA that can support denser housing.

Anonymous wrote:Troll score 4/10. A solid effort.

Except I'm not??? I was legitimately serious. I wasn't aware the land wasn't good for development due to its geography.

Rick Creek Park is a park because it is not developable land. It’s a rocky ravine with a creek, that sometimes floods. Nobody is going to build there.

Why would we destroy a public recreation area and watershed that benefits everyone, when we can convert vacant and underused office buildings to housing?

Troll score 4/10. A solid effort.

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

It’s a nation park. Like most national parks it was undesirable land to develop. You want more housing …build up. All you have to do is remove the height limits in DC.

Why hasn't' EHN or Bowser asked the Feds to do a land swap or to purchase some portion of it for housing then??? How would that be a bad idea?

Anonymous wrote:DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.

First, it’s not DC property - it’s Federal.
Second, it’s a terrible idea.

DC is concerned about housing and not having enough, why isn't' the city developing Rock Creek Park? I'm not saying build over the entire thing, but take a sizeable chunk of it and build affordable housing.