Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, why don't we do this? DC is iconic for the rowhouses, not single family detached homes (with the exception of the white house). This would solve so many problems at once

Rowhouses are SFH

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, why don't we do this? DC is iconic for the rowhouses, not single family detached homes (with the exception of the white house). This would solve so many problems at once

We're in a housing crisis

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't know anything about the land, why would you suggest it?

DP but we are in a housing crisis. Why should any suggestions be off the table?

Nothing can stay the same forever, that’s NIMBYism.

We are not in a housing crisis. There are tons of places to live.

You developers are so ridiculously transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

The prices would tell you otherwise.

DC has more sqft parkland per person than almost any city in America. The idea that it should be off limits to talk about how to better utilize this land to make housing more affordable is baffling.

NP and I also don’t think there is a lack of housing in DC. There is a lack of housing that MC families want- which are flipped free standing houses with backyards. There are tons of new construction going on in Navy Yard, NOMA, lots of underdeveloped land on St. Elizabeth’s Campus, lots of empty office and former retail buildings, etc. People just want specific things and therefore pay 850,000 for a flipped 3 bedroom rowhouse in Brightwood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't know anything about the land, why would you suggest it?

It was a suggestion, chill.

You go ask the feds and see what they say. Deal had to get an actual Act of Congress to expand its soccer field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't know anything about the land, why would you suggest it?

DP but we are in a housing crisis. Why should any suggestions be off the table?

Nothing can stay the same forever, that’s NIMBYism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Could even just remove or lighten height limits outside of the downtown/federal core.

While it is currently illegal to build taller than the Washington Monument, there is nothing illegal about converting Federal land to housing.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

The prices would tell you otherwise.

DC has more sqft parkland per person than almost any city in America. The idea that it should be off limits to talk about how to better utilize this land to make housing more affordable is baffling.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Could even just remove or lighten height limits outside of the downtown/federal core.

I don't think we lack housing in the DC area.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don't know anything about the land, why would you suggest it?

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are currently several suboptimal land uses at Rock Creek Park, like the horse stables that could easily be converted to housing without having any impact on parkland. There are no topographical issues to development of the horse stables.

Having this land set aside for a park will be useless in the future if we do nothing to stop climate change now.

Seems that everyone turns into a NIMBY when it come to the stuff they enjoy.