Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I see you have no good counter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

In fact Richard Florida has a column about how cities with more parks and fuller tree canopies attract more ‘creatives’ and investment. Cities with more tree canopy are more likely to have cooler temperatures, better overall health and lower stress. Greenery, lots of natural light and open vistas are an economic and lifestyle advantage for Washington.

Changing the allowe height of a building from 15 to 20 stories does not change the amount of parkland or the tree canopy.

It affects a feeling openness, sky and shade. Why would they stop at 20? Why not 30? Once you've moved the goalposts once - would be so tempting to move them again.

You can locate the parcels to keep openness and sky.

The slippery slope thing is silly. You try to analyze demand, light and shade issues, and come up with a logical height, instead of one based on 19th century fire fighting technology. And if people in 2060 want to change it again anyway, well that is up to them.

Thanks for letting me know this is ongoing. I'm a big fan of taller building and will be letting them know of my support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

And that wouldn't change. In fact, you would be able to see the Washington Monument from border areas of the city that had taller buildings. No one is suggesting radical changes to the center core of the city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

I love being able to see the washington monument from almost anywhere in the city

Anonymous wrote:It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

For the Greater Greater Developer party line.

It’s a great idea. Look at Western Ave at Friendship Heights. One side of the street has a height limit the other side does not. Look at K street with all the big ugly box building because the developers have to maximize floor space. No one even knows why there is a height limit.

More density will increase demand for mass transit. Right now the city does not have enough density to fund mass transit but enough density to cause congestion. Nothing will change around the mall it’s all federal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

In fact Richard Florida has a column about how cities with more parks and fuller tree canopies attract more ‘creatives’ and investment. Cities with more tree canopy are more likely to have cooler temperatures, better overall health and lower stress. Greenery, lots of natural light and open vistas are an economic and lifestyle advantage for Washington.

Changing the allowe height of a building from 15 to 20 stories does not change the amount of parkland or the tree canopy.

It affects a feeling openness, sky and shade. Why would they stop at 20? Why not 30? Once you've moved the goalposts once - would be so tempting to move them again.

Anonymous wrote:Developers will never build enough units to meaningfully reduce costs. They operate in a cartel-like manner, in collusion with city officials (to some extent).

Developers and the city lose when housing becomes more affordable. Their incentives are to create enough housing to keep up with population growth, but not so much to lead to price declines. The only “affordable housing” is through government rental programs and that will never create personal wealth for middle class workers.

1. Even IF that were the case, it would be better than building less, not keeping up with population growth, and having price increases

2. IF the city is going to collude to support a cartel, it would do so BY things like zoning that limits housing supply. If you oppose such cartels, ou should oppose such limits on supply

3. The power of District to enforce a cartel is impacted by competing development in Arlington, etc

4. I don't know of any actual evidence of such a cartel

5. The goal of housing policy should be to enable housing, not to determine how people "build wealth".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

In fact Richard Florida has a column about how cities with more parks and fuller tree canopies attract more ‘creatives’ and investment. Cities with more tree canopy are more likely to have cooler temperatures, better overall health and lower stress. Greenery, lots of natural light and open vistas are an economic and lifestyle advantage for Washington.

Changing the allowe height of a building from 15 to 20 stories does not change the amount of parkland or the tree canopy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about the environment, you support density.

This is absolutely true - density enables transit and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods all while reducing sprawl and reducing infra costs and the cost of providing municipal services.

And new multi-unit buildings use much less energy per capita than even the most efficient new single family homes.

This is basic rubbish. While it sounds good in theory, it only makes sense if you think that housing is one big market. In reality, it is highly segmented. People who are looking for a resaonably affordable new home with a front setback and a decent backyard are going to look in the outer suburbs. They are not going to be persuaded by so-called smart growthers to move to a tall tower unit with two bedrooms on top of a Cava in DC. Raising the height limit will raise developer profits, but will not reduce sprawl.

Sure, some people want that, and they can have that. But where do you think the people who live in those new buildings will be living if the buildings aren't built? They don't just disappear. Instead, they compete for the housing that is available, AKA housing further out, making it less affordable for everyone.

See, basic economics isn't so hard to understand!

DC is nowhere near the point that people are being geographically challenged to find reasonable housing. You can still find deals IN the city FFS! You just want everyone to find a reasonable deal in a "fun" neighborhood with a great school. Everyone wants that. A highrise is not some magic wand.

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

There are obviously STILL places left for planned gentrification. The working class would love to live in mixed income neighborhoods with supermarkets and amenities. if Bowser worked with developers to build mixed income units in anacostia and other such neighborhoods that would open up tons of housing without building high rises all over. Its pretty there. What's the issue?

You clearly haven't been to Anacostia recently, if ever, and what other neighborhoods? Let's start with the stupid parking lot over the Cleveland Park Metro and the low rise development and 3 story parking garage over the Tenley metro and go from there.

Why do you consider parking lots stupid? A lot of people in DC would love a stupid parking lot to alleviate parking woes and support their commercial hubs. Why do you presume I havent been to Anacostia recently? Are you saying the rents are nosebleed there??

1. Parking lots are a waste of space in an urban area, esp by a metro station. and are unattractive.

2. There is a considerable amount of new development happening east of the River.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

Some do, but most people who live in tall buildings are childless. The idea that building tall buildings is all about, I dunno, getting into Deal is silly.

You do know right now that there are about 2300 new mutlifamily units under construction or far along in the zoning process within a mile or so of Deal?

Still not dense enough for the big developers, their Greater Greater Washington shills and their swallows in the Bowser administration.

You can add density without changing the height limit. Please don't change the subject.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

IOW there are still places to gentrify. Either you push people into the suburbs or you gentrify the last remaining working class neighborhoods in DC (or both).

I doubt "great schools" are much of an issue, as most people choosing to live in taller buildings would likely be childless.

People with children don't live in tall buildings?

Some do, but most people who live in tall buildings are childless. The idea that building tall buildings is all about, I dunno, getting into Deal is silly.

You do know right now that there are about 2300 new mutlifamily units under construction or far along in the zoning process within a mile or so of Deal?

But this is about changing the height limit. The areas within the Deal zone are probably not the best targets for added height - the places served by multiple metro lines seem like the most likely.

Developers will never build enough units to meaningfully reduce costs. They operate in a cartel-like manner, in collusion with city officials (to some extent).

Developers and the city lose when housing becomes more affordable. Their incentives are to create enough housing to keep up with population growth, but not so much to lead to price declines. The only “affordable housing” is through government rental programs and that will never create personal wealth for middle class workers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Height limits are the one thing that keeps our city charming and unique.

What an utterly moronic take

It sure isn’t local government ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

To enjoy wide streets, and open feel, healthy old growth trees and sunlight on one face is moronic? Then why do people want to live in DC in the first place, pray tell? Is everyone here a moron??

In fact Richard Florida has a column about how cities with more parks and fuller tree canopies attract more ‘creatives’ and investment. Cities with more tree canopy are more likely to have cooler temperatures, better overall health and lower stress. Greenery, lots of natural light and open vistas are an economic and lifestyle advantage for Washington.

Please forward that column to our self serving Mayor, and to our Council who need to hold the line against her cement mixers.