Anonymous wrote:Long article in the Post today about Phoenix, AZ, urbanization and rising temperatures. Anything that threatens green setbacks from the sidewalks in DC should be rallied against. We are so lucky to live in such a green city. Also, any new development should have tree planting, cooling factors, mitigation of concrete (reflecting paint), LEED stuff etc. We really don't want to go the way of Phoenix.

Another moronic post on this thread - are they all being made by the same person to keep this thread alive?

DC has probably the most generous building setback requirements in the US and no one has proposed to change them - in either residential or commercial zones.

DC also has some of the most aggressive storm water retention requirements and green area ratio requirements in the country. And that of course is separate from the considerable and permanent green space in DC which is among the highest in the country.

One of the reasons DC has spent so much on planting new trees and its tree canopy is increasing for the first time in 40 years is because the city is growing and is able to spend more money on planting trees.

DC in fact is doing many things right while suburban sprawl places like Phoenix (and many DC suburbs) are not doing much of anything right - do you need this explained to you again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

Everyone loves gentrification now.

Long article in the Post today about Phoenix, AZ, urbanization and rising temperatures. Anything that threatens green setbacks from the sidewalks in DC should be rallied against. We are so lucky to live in such a green city. Also, any new development should have tree planting, cooling factors, mitigation of concrete (reflecting paint), LEED stuff etc. We really don't want to go the way of Phoenix.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Yeah, the trash-strewn massive vacant lot that sat where DCUSA now is was sooooo much better.

Now CH is trash strewn big box. It could have all been developed better. They rushed it. It practically went up overnight. Shame.

Yeah. I mean urban living and density can be great, but when I think of Columbia Heights I think "chain stores, litter, muggings." Hardly an advertisement for urbanity. Pick almost anywhere else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Yeah, the trash-strewn massive vacant lot that sat where DCUSA now is was sooooo much better.

Now CH is trash strewn big box. It could have all been developed better. They rushed it. It practically went up overnight. Shame.

DCUSA is really the only bad project in CH - it is ugly, has too much parking and generates endless illegal parking despite having an excess of parking spaces. If DC didn't owe so much money for the stupid parking garage it would probably make sense to tear it down and re-build that project.

Most of the other projects were actually nicely done and there was in fact a lot of planning that went into CH. The Tivoli Theater I think came out particularly well and there are also some nice new pocket parks.

In any case it is way better than it was post riot and pre 1996 when that block was one of the sketchiest in NW DC.

Despite the complaints about gentrification both the population and retail mix in CH are actually pretty diverse and there is still a lot of affordable housing in that neighborhood though much of it of course is subsidized.

It is nice to see the Tivoli Theater facade saved--I agree. They do a good job with that overall in DC. That is thoughtful planning. The area around the metro entrance leaves me cold. Doesn't seem green, pretty or clean. Kind of a sterile big box feel. Given the AA history of DC, the nearby use of Mt. pleasnt as a place for wealthy residents to "summer", and then Latino influx into CH, they could have gone for some heritage design too, with some 1930s quaintness meets modern function. Perhaps made that square like one with a fountain you'd find in a Latin American borough. The problem isn't some development--it's rushing. And in the case of the Mayor's plan, ramming through. When you take quality of life, aesthetics, surveys, and why we have existing green protections like setbacks into consideration, you can come up with a better plan than simply a real estate no holds barred gold rush. I'm sorry, but I watched CH go up overnight and I don't think it was done particularly well at all. I am never tempted to go "hang out" in the square by metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Yeah, the trash-strewn massive vacant lot that sat where DCUSA now is was sooooo much better.

Now CH is trash strewn big box. It could have all been developed better. They rushed it. It practically went up overnight. Shame.

DCUSA is really the only bad project in CH - it is ugly, has too much parking and generates endless illegal parking despite having an excess of parking spaces. If DC didn't owe so much money for the stupid parking garage it would probably make sense to tear it down and re-build that project.

Most of the other projects were actually nicely done and there was in fact a lot of planning that went into CH. The Tivoli Theater I think came out particularly well and there are also some nice new pocket parks.

In any case it is way better than it was post riot and pre 1996 when that block was one of the sketchiest in NW DC.

Despite the complaints about gentrification both the population and retail mix in CH are actually pretty diverse and there is still a lot of affordable housing in that neighborhood though much of it of course is subsidized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Yeah, the trash-strewn massive vacant lot that sat where DCUSA now is was sooooo much better.

Now CH is trash strewn big box. It could have all been developed better. They rushed it. It practically went up overnight. Shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Yeah, the trash-strewn massive vacant lot that sat where DCUSA now is was sooooo much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

I don't prefer the crime that was prevalent then; I 100% prefer the physical layout. The gentrification/density plan that came in with metro was rushed and ill-thought through. CH looks horrible, especially the big box area around the metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

This again?

White people are buying up single family homes that used to be owned by AA families because DC is a desirable place to live and there is not enough supply. In most neighborhoods this happens well before any densification happens and in some neighborhoods it happens without any densification at all.

Now it is true that one of the reasons densification attracts more affluent whites is because those neighborhoods tend to be more attractive - they have better transit, are more walkable/bikeable and usually have better retail and are more vibrant.

I lived in Columbia Heights 30 years ago - you will not find anyone, black or white, who prefers CH circa 1990 to what it has evolved to in the last 20 years (though it hasn't actually changed that dramatically). It is unfortunate the city has not allowed enough housing to be built to keep prices down so more people can live in highly desirable locations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning for low density is structural racism.

How? Last picture I saw of Mayor Bowser's house looks low density, beautiful, and the kind of place or neighborhood that is an inspiration to achieve for all people, any racial/ethnic. She's AA and what do you tell the immigrant from Central America who buys a place with acreage after starting a thriving business? https://dcist.com/story/19/07/15/activists-protest-outside-bowsers-home-saying-her-policies-harm-black-washingtonians/

Old article but Holder had dense at 1.47 million https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/10/09/voyeurs-guide-homes-washingtons-rich-famous/#ericholder

And the mega $$$ Sheila Johnson is the queen of low density. My preferred pharmacist is Black and lives in SFH. . The WaPO article on property taxes? A very simple solution is to do it like Virginia - annual re-assessment based on sales and comps for fair market value. But what happens when a property sells for less than the county expects? It can be deemed a handyman special so anyone with an unfair assessment should appeal.

Obama's house in Kalorama is low-density, and gorgeous!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning for low density is structural racism.

How? Last picture I saw of Mayor Bowser's house looks low density, beautiful, and the kind of place or neighborhood that is an inspiration to achieve for all people, any racial/ethnic. She's AA and what do you tell the immigrant from Central America who buys a place with acreage after starting a thriving business? https://dcist.com/story/19/07/15/activists-protest-outside-bowsers-home-saying-her-policies-harm-black-washingtonians/

Old article but Holder had dense at 1.47 million https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/10/09/voyeurs-guide-homes-washingtons-rich-famous/#ericholder

And the mega $$$ Sheila Johnson is the queen of low density. My preferred pharmacist is Black and lives in SFH. . The WaPO article on property taxes? A very simple solution is to do it like Virginia - annual re-assessment based on sales and comps for fair market value. But what happens when a property sells for less than the county expects? It can be deemed a handyman special so anyone with an unfair assessment should appeal.

Not that PP but oh my god stop asking other people to do your homework, there is an abundant wealth of information out there about zoning and racism and it would have taken you less time to google than it did to type up this entirely worthless paragraph.

Not worthless. The fact is anyone can buy anywhere. Redlined areas might have become gentrified or mixed and some once desirable have become less desirable. The fact is redlining has not existed for decades. My post was examples of persons buying real estate and the neighborhoods or buildings are expensive. What do you expect? Arlington subsidized housing or a public buy up of SFH in Arlington with each allocated to 1 nuclear family? Dramatic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the new redlining. So racist.

+1000

When they talk about replacing single family homes with condos, they’re almost always talking about single family homes owned by black people. And it’s almost always white people who are buying the condos.

This is why the share of white residents in DC is skyrocketing.

DC has the worst displacement of minority and low-income people in the country thanks to “increasing density.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning for low density is structural racism.

How? Last picture I saw of Mayor Bowser's house looks low density, beautiful, and the kind of place or neighborhood that is an inspiration to achieve for all people, any racial/ethnic. She's AA and what do you tell the immigrant from Central America who buys a place with acreage after starting a thriving business? https://dcist.com/story/19/07/15/activists-protest-outside-bowsers-home-saying-her-policies-harm-black-washingtonians/

Old article but Holder had dense at 1.47 million https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/10/09/voyeurs-guide-homes-washingtons-rich-famous/#ericholder

And the mega $$$ Sheila Johnson is the queen of low density. My preferred pharmacist is Black and lives in SFH. . The WaPO article on property taxes? A very simple solution is to do it like Virginia - annual re-assessment based on sales and comps for fair market value. But what happens when a property sells for less than the county expects? It can be deemed a handyman special so anyone with an unfair assessment should appeal.

Not that PP but oh my god stop asking other people to do your homework, there is an abundant wealth of information out there about zoning and racism and it would have taken you less time to google than it did to type up this entirely worthless paragraph.

Anonymous wrote:Zoning for low density is structural racism.

How? Last picture I saw of Mayor Bowser's house looks low density, beautiful, and the kind of place or neighborhood that is an inspiration to achieve for all people, any racial/ethnic. She's AA and what do you tell the immigrant from Central America who buys a place with acreage after starting a thriving business? https://dcist.com/story/19/07/15/activists-protest-outside-bowsers-home-saying-her-policies-harm-black-washingtonians/

Old article but Holder had dense at 1.47 million https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/10/09/voyeurs-guide-homes-washingtons-rich-famous/#ericholder

And the mega $$$ Sheila Johnson is the queen of low density. My preferred pharmacist is Black and lives in SFH. . The WaPO article on property taxes? A very simple solution is to do it like Virginia - annual re-assessment based on sales and comps for fair market value. But what happens when a property sells for less than the county expects? It can be deemed a handyman special so anyone with an unfair assessment should appeal.