Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Or, how about this as an option: both! Apartments AND attached houses.

Apartments can be built in the already denser areas of DC, while townhouses fit better in the FH community. Building 100-200 townhouses in FH would be terrific. Creating a GT like community.

Hey, how about this as an option: Apartments AND attached houses!

Especially because apartments will fit just fine in the FH community, and I know this because there are already apartments in the FH community.

As you said, there's already a lot of apartment buildings with even more already being built. In between options are what is missing.

Anonymous wrote:I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

It's funny...do people think if you mention townhomes on DCUM enough times that the city and developers will somehow follow?

Nobody with any power over the Wisconsin Avenue development is suggesting townhomes, and none will be built...and in the remote chance that any are built, they will go for very high prices.

I guess we can live in our fantasy world where townhomes and Costco reside side-by-side...through in a fantastic new outdoor pool and I recall Frumin or someone lobbying for an indoor ice rink to be built in FH.

Feel free to add whatever you want to Fantasy Land.

Anonymous wrote:What's the incentive to rebuild Friendship Heights when the city currently enables criminal behavior while failing to protect law abiding residents and small businesses?

To generate $$$ for developers and the pols they kick some back to, silly! Are you new here?

Anonymous wrote:Well, if there is a vacancy rate of 25% in the city, it suggests that no apartments are needed. If the vacancy rate is 2%, that's a different story. These are just made up numbers, but that's part of how you decide what's needed.

Why are you making up numbers?

Honestly, it is amazing to me that developers are willing to make these big bets when so many new developments have not been rented yet.

Well, if there is a vacancy rate of 25% in the city, it suggests that no apartments are needed. If the vacancy rate is 2%, that's a different story. These are just made up numbers, but that's part of how you decide what's needed.

Anonymous wrote:I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

Who will decide whether or not apartments are "needed"? And needed by whom?

I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Or, how about this as an option: both! Apartments AND attached houses.

Apartments can be built in the already denser areas of DC, while townhouses fit better in the FH community. Building 100-200 townhouses in FH would be terrific. Creating a GT like community.

Hey, how about this as an option: Apartments AND attached houses!

Especially because apartments will fit just fine in the FH community, and I know this because there are already apartments in the FH community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Or, how about this as an option: both! Apartments AND attached houses.

Apartments can be built in the already denser areas of DC, while townhouses fit better in the FH community. Building 100-200 townhouses in FH would be terrific. Creating a GT like community.

Anonymous wrote:You can get a townhouse in Rockville for $750k. Also, why do we think DC is going to have this influx of people to fill all these new condos? I've lived here for 30 years, and the population has gone up and down a little, but not much. Right now, we 're in a downturn because of remote work, crime, and school quality. Why do we assume 100,000 new people are going to move to DC? I just don't see it.

The People Should Just Move To Rockville Where Housing Is Cheaper Than In DC argument conflicts with the People Aren't Moving To DC Because They Don't Want To argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Or, how about this as an option: both! Apartments AND attached houses.

There is already a large supply of apartments up and down both Connecticut and Wisconsin.

Meaning: there are already apartments on Connecticut and Wisconsin? Or even: there are already many apartments on Connecticut and Wisconsin? Yes, that's true, there are. And so therefore you have decided that that's enough apartments?

With vacancy rates so high that they fill them with voucher holders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Or, how about this as an option: both! Apartments AND attached houses.

There is already a large supply of apartments up and down both Connecticut and Wisconsin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Il’m not the previous poster, but please don’t make this into Ballston or Pike and Rose. Why would people live in DH if it just mimics those other places and they have lower taxes and better schools. Let’s rebuild Fh in a way that retains what’s special about the city. And yes, I’d live to see townhomes rather than tiny condos/apartments. We need places for families.

What is "special about the city" in your opinion?

Families live in apartments, too.

Some families live in apartments, but not most. And the apartments they're building in DC are small and expensive. Even if they are lauded as 2 bedroom/2 bath, they are tiny and not conducive to family living. Some of the older apartments are better sized, but those are falling prey to the voucher community. I just think that if a family must choose between a $750k 1000 square foot apartment in DC vs a $750k 2000 square foot house with a yard in Rockville, they will take the latter, especially since the schools are better.

I bet, if there were more apartments, then the apartments would cost less to rent or buy. Because yes, $750,000 is eye-poppingly unaffordable for most people, whether it's for an apartment in DC or a house in Rockville. Speaking of which, where in Rockville can you buy a $750,000 2,000 square foot house with a yard?

Not really. Especially if the government is filling the rental units.