Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

DC transportation consists of a half-way broken down metro and Ubers. Always puzzles me when people praise taking Ubers 5 blocks away from a destination but they live in the city and don't have a car as "being environmental friendly"

Metrorail works pretty well most of the time, and has plenty of usage.

Lots of metro buses in DC (and in the inner suburbs, ART, DASH, RideOn buses). Also lots of people walk, bike, scooter places.

Using Uber for the occasional trip to make it easier to not own a car IS environmentally friendly (I almost never Uber, and don't know if that is how it is used). Certainly a five block uber trip beats a 20 mile car trip.

Also of course dense living is more environmentally friendly even beyond transportation. Common walls save energy. Fewer sq ft of home per person saves energy. Buying less stuff saves energy.

While everything you're saying is true, the people this article is referring to would scoff at living in a tiny place with no room. That's the big problem. The ones who are most vocal about this kinda stuff are the ones with a 4,000 Sq ft monstrosity on a big lot in the city, but think they're good people cause they ride the metro instead of driving.

1. If someone lives in a 4000 sq foot house that they own that is fine with me. The ones I have a problem with are the ones who don't want it to be legal to build small places in their neighborhood (not sure why you fram it as tiny place with no room though).

2. I find that the folks who like transit and walkability are often supporters of new development, while the opponents are often people who drive

3. There ARE liberal NIMBYs who go on about the resistance, but oppose upzoning to let more people live in their neighborhood. but again,at least in greater DC, IME, those are NOT the people talking about the evils of driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

DC transportation consists of a half-way broken down metro and Ubers. Always puzzles me when people praise taking Ubers 5 blocks away from a destination but they live in the city and don't have a car as "being environmental friendly"

Metrorail works pretty well most of the time, and has plenty of usage.

Lots of metro buses in DC (and in the inner suburbs, ART, DASH, RideOn buses). Also lots of people walk, bike, scooter places.

Using Uber for the occasional trip to make it easier to not own a car IS environmentally friendly (I almost never Uber, and don't know if that is how it is used). Certainly a five block uber trip beats a 20 mile car trip.

Also of course dense living is more environmentally friendly even beyond transportation. Common walls save energy. Fewer sq ft of home per person saves energy. Buying less stuff saves energy.

While everything you're saying is true, the people this article is referring to would scoff at living in a tiny place with no room. That's the big problem. The ones who are most vocal about this kinda stuff are the ones with a 4,000 Sq ft monstrosity on a big lot in the city, but think they're good people cause they ride the metro instead of driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

DC transportation consists of a half-way broken down metro and Ubers. Always puzzles me when people praise taking Ubers 5 blocks away from a destination but they live in the city and don't have a car as "being environmental friendly"

Metrorail works pretty well most of the time, and has plenty of usage.

Lots of metro buses in DC (and in the inner suburbs, ART, DASH, RideOn buses). Also lots of people walk, bike, scooter places.

Using Uber for the occasional trip to make it easier to not own a car IS environmentally friendly (I almost never Uber, and don't know if that is how it is used). Certainly a five block uber trip beats a 20 mile car trip.

Also of course dense living is more environmentally friendly even beyond transportation. Common walls save energy. Fewer sq ft of home per person saves energy. Buying less stuff saves energy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

DC transportation consists of a half-way broken down metro and Ubers. Always puzzles me when people praise taking Ubers 5 blocks away from a destination but they live in the city and don't have a car as "being environmental friendly"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

Yep, this is me--I mean, the height limits have been great and all, but we need to add at least some added density for a few reasons:

1) reduced emissions
2) affordable housing (so that cities are not simply homes for the rich)
3) reduced traffic/gridlock

Anonymous wrote:
The issue, as the OP's article pointed out, is that there is staunch resistance to rezoning to allow higher density housing in urban areas. And most of that resistance is from liberals who have entrenched interest in not changing zoning regulations, whether they're gentry liberals in Bethesda or urban liberals afraid of gentrification in inner city areas.

Thats only because those areas are heavily liberal. In NoVa at least, you see gentry Republicans supporting NIMBYism. Sometimes in coalition with gentry liberals.

Anonymous wrote:It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"

IME most of the folks focused on climate change and reducing driving are supportiive of added density - the folks who want to keep DC, Arlington low density are the folks who defend driving. Maybe its different in SF, say, but DC the transportation-urbanism link is strong - maybe credit does go to folks like GGWash for making the connection.

DC has a LOT of room to go up in price. My childhood home in NYC on Queens/Nassau New York City boarder I saw sold a few months ago for 850k. It is on a 40 by 100 plot and 1,300 square foot.

House last sold April 2004 for 550k
Parents bought it December 1973 for $36,000
Original owner bought it new in 1923 for $3,000

That house is 18 miles from Manhattan similar to Rockville MD to DC.

Totals property tax on house is 12k. 4x original coat.

Who know in 50 years it may be a 8.5 million home.

If DC gets to NYC or San Fran prices watch out.

You will be telling kids that once row houses were only one million and they will laugh at you.

It's a mix of "everyone should be living in the city because driving from an exurb is bad..but...if you don't pay a premium and a certain class, we aren't willing to give up our space for someone else to interrupt my comfort. But also, duck you if you have a car and buy a single family house in the burbs cause....pollution"