Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Generally in historic districts, particularly outside of downtown, infill buildings are not considered compatible under HPRB standard unless they are within 1 or 2 stories of nearby structures. If taller buildings were desired near all Metro stops, them DC would not have designated historic districts.

Woodley Park and Cleveland Park were designated after neighborhood activists scrambled to advocate for them in the 1980's. Tenley, Van Ness and Friendship Heights are not. The districts were created to curtail density. Please don't be obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Generally in historic districts, particularly outside of downtown, infill buildings are not considered compatible under HPRB standard unless they are within 1 or 2 stories of nearby structures. If taller buildings were desired near all Metro stops, them DC would not have designated historic districts.

Desired by whom?

It's interesting how some people are steadfastly opposed to the ahistorical presence of tall buildings in designated historic districts, but don't have any problems with the ahistorical presence of cars in designated historic districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

DP. I would say, Van Ness and Tenley should be allowed to have the height and density of Navy Yard. Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

So Van Ness and Tenley should have the height and density of Navy Yard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Generally in historic districts, particularly outside of downtown, infill buildings are not considered compatible under HPRB standard unless they are within 1 or 2 stories of nearby structures. If taller buildings were desired near all Metro stops, them DC would not have designated historic districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

You can make a qualified argument that area context is important in building appearance. But not in building height. If you're saying that there shouldn't be >2-story buildings on top of a Metro station in Capitol Hill or Takoma/Takoma Park, because there aren't currently many >2-story buildings there - then no. That would be wasting the potential use value of a Metro station, just like the potential use value of many of the Metro stations in Prince George's County is wasted (speaking of area context).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Considerations about historic districts aside, yes, areas immediately adjacent to Metro stops should be heavily built up.

and...if you are not going to focus density and more housing on top of metro stations, then where, prey tell, should there be housing density?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the stores in DCUSA not have windows?

Anyway, last time I was in DCUSA there was a shooting across the street and the police kept everybody in the building. Also super expensive parking.

What is not to like?

$1.50/hr is expensive?

Yes, if I am spending money at your store.

So anything more than free parking is expensive? You're an idiot.

Also, if parking is plentiful and only $1.50/hour, it's a tip that the area is not dense. Denser than single story solo businesses, perhaps, but not dense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

When the region invests billions of dollars in a regional transportation system, then it only makes sense for each jurisdiction to reap as much benefit as possible from it. That means density on or near metro stations that allow more people to live "right there" with more walkable amenities "right there." Plopping a 2 story indoor shopping mall, whether in Friendship Heights or Columbia Heights with a ton of parking, undermines the investment that should be recouped in the form of sales, property and income taxes from the owners and people who live, work and shop there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

I am pretty sure that if it were still an open parcel, that what is there today would not be proposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the stores in DCUSA not have windows?

Anyway, last time I was in DCUSA there was a shooting across the street and the police kept everybody in the building. Also super expensive parking.

What is not to like?

$1.50/hr is expensive?

Yes, if I am spending money at your store.

Car storage is not free. It can be subsidized, like it is in the building, or on the street, where DC taxpayer cover most of the costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wawa, CVS, FedEx, BB&T Bank, 7-11: None of which are in that mall. DCUSA also takes up a comically massive footprint in the neighborhood, complete with an always-empty parking garage, so writing it off as "one building" is putting lipstick on a pig. Your prized density has brought with it soulless, charmless retail that can be found anywhere else. The recipe is already being repeated in other "dense" neighborhoods.

I don't understand why you keep referring to DC USA as an example of density. It's not. For one thing, it has a two-story underground parking garage with 1,000 spaces.

It’s apparent you guys just make up definitions for words and concepts on the fly.

"You guys" who?

DC USA not being an example of density because it has underground parking is purely made up.

Then could you please explain how it is an example of density?

This is not debate club. You said it is not. And you made that up. You prove it or go away.

Who made what up? Somebody kept referring to DCUSA as an example of density. Why? It's a suburban-style shopping mall development in a city.

DCUSA is a Marion Barry-era attempt at economic development, and should be no one’s template for infill. But it is certainly density, even if it is just retail and not housing. I don’t understand the point that if a development has onsite parking that it is somehow not “density.”

it is 2 1/2 stories on top of a metro station. Exactly not density.

Don’t get me wrong. DCUSA is fugly. Even the name is so 80s/90s. But there’s no requirement to have tall buildings next to a Metro stop. The area context is also important, lest we conclude that all Metro-served areas should look like the Navy Yard or Friendship Heghts. Capitol Hill and Tacoma Park are low height, low to moderate density neighborhoods, as is Cleveland Park. All three are historic districts and are by Metro stops.. When it comes to a location near a Metro station, one template does not fit all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

Nobody is demanding that anything be torn down. Merely that it is allowed to build at higher densities.

But you're right, it's definitely non-"density" to have a suburban-style shopping mall with a 1000-space parking garage on top of a Metro station in a dense DC neighborhood.

After reading this I have concluded that every urban development you like is density and every urban development you don’t like is not density. Thanks for clarifying.

What do you consider density, and why do you think that DCUSA is density?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool, when are we going to see 5,000 GGW posts on why DCUSA must be upzoned? If that crowd was at all ideologically coherent, it would demand that DCUSA be torn down and housing be built in its place. DC's densest neighborhood should not have a suburban shopping mall with a giant parking garage plopped on top of a Metro station.

Nobody is demanding that anything be torn down. Merely that it is allowed to build at higher densities.

But you're right, it's definitely non-"density" to have a suburban-style shopping mall with a 1000-space parking garage on top of a Metro station in a dense DC neighborhood.

After reading this I have concluded that every urban development you like is density and every urban development you don’t like is not density. Thanks for clarifying.