Anonymous wrote:On what planet does it make sense to “densify” the residential side streets of neighborhoods like Forest Hills, AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Spring Valley that we’re planned as leafy suburban streets with set-backs and pedestrian scale (or Cleveland Park, for that matter, which was both planned as a street car suburb and is a historic district on the National Register)? Is densification also planned for Georgetown?

Georgetown is already a lot denser than those neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On what planet does it make sense to “densify” the residential side streets of neighborhoods like Forest Hills, AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Spring Valley that we’re planned as leafy suburban streets with set-backs and pedestrian scale (or Cleveland Park, for that matter, which was both planned as a street car suburb and is a historic district on the National Register)? Is densification also planned for Georgetown?

Those neighborhoods were originally planned a century ago as leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia, so leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia they must remain forever more!

All those beautiful old homes should be razed so we can put up glorified dorms everywhere.

We can toast the razing with pan galactic gargle blasters

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On what planet does it make sense to “densify” the residential side streets of neighborhoods like Forest Hills, AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Spring Valley that we’re planned as leafy suburban streets with set-backs and pedestrian scale (or Cleveland Park, for that matter, which was both planned as a street car suburb and is a historic district on the National Register)? Is densification also planned for Georgetown?

Those neighborhoods were originally planned a century ago as leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia, so leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia they must remain forever more!

All those beautiful old homes should be razed so we can put up glorified dorms everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:On what planet does it make sense to “densify” the residential side streets of neighborhoods like Forest Hills, AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Spring Valley that we’re planned as leafy suburban streets with set-backs and pedestrian scale (or Cleveland Park, for that matter, which was both planned as a street car suburb and is a historic district on the National Register)? Is densification also planned for Georgetown?

Those neighborhoods were originally planned a century ago as leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia, so leafy suburban streets within the District of Columbia they must remain forever more!

On what planet does it make sense to “densify” the residential side streets of neighborhoods like Forest Hills, AU Park, Chevy Chase DC, Spring Valley that we’re planned as leafy suburban streets with set-backs and pedestrian scale (or Cleveland Park, for that matter, which was both planned as a street car suburb and is a historic district on the National Register)? Is densification also planned for Georgetown?

The main places where GGW is endorsing increased density is in places that will not be gentrified because they're already wealthy -- as a PP noted, places like Tenleytown, Friendship Heights, Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, etc. -- places that are near Metro but are zoned mostly for detached single-family homes. That isn't going to push anyone out or make any neighborhoods "hot" or too expensive; they're already expensive. In cases like that, adding density would probably bring down the average cost of housing in the neighborhood, because there would be smaller units available, not just $1 million detached houses.

They do also advocate for in-fill development in neighborhoods that are already zoned for higher density, true. But most of those are also already gentrifying; it's not a case of density pushing along the trend, either, in places like Petworth or Columbia Heights.

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density -- i.e. condos and apartments -- is the engine of gentrification.

You need a critical mass of people to live in an area before grocery stores and bars and stores and restaurants will move in. But once they do, it's off to the races. The neighborhood is suddenly "hot" and everyone wants to live there and prices skyrocket.

If you live in DC long enough, you see this happening over and over and over.

This idea that increasing density will cut housing prices defies the entire history of development in DC.

I have been following housing in DC since the late 1980s.

Almost every neighborhood that gentrified did so with rehabbers at the cutting edge - moving a block or two over from already gentrified areas which were becoming more expensive.

They did not need super amenties, because they could use existing amenities a few blocks away. Or drive to amenities (most rowhouse households had/have cars).

There was gentrification happening in the rowhouse blocks east of 14th Street at a time when 14th street was mostly old businesses, with a couple of theaters and a gay clinic mixed in (but none of the latter relied on clients/attendees in walking distance) By the time 14th Street became "hot" people were already rehabbing rowhouses east of 9th street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

I like my housing value going up rather than down thank you

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density -- i.e. condos and apartments -- is the engine of gentrification.

You need a critical mass of people to live in an area before grocery stores and bars and stores and restaurants will move in. But once they do, it's off to the races. The neighborhood is suddenly "hot" and everyone wants to live there and prices skyrocket.

If you live in DC long enough, you see this happening over and over and over.

This idea that increasing density will cut housing prices defies the entire history of development in DC.

And consider who is pushing this mantra: The large developers, their zoning law firms, their hired gun GOP political operatives, their funded mouthpieces, and some staff in the Office of Planning who see their next career move with a big development firm.

Increasing density -- i.e. condos and apartments -- is the engine of gentrification.

You need a critical mass of people to live in an area before grocery stores and bars and stores and restaurants will move in. But once they do, it's off to the races. The neighborhood is suddenly "hot" and everyone wants to live there and prices skyrocket.

If you live in DC long enough, you see this happening over and over and over.

This idea that increasing density will cut housing prices defies the entire history of development in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a news source. It’s a pretty well-documented PR outlet for developers.

Really?


Post links to 5 articles in the last month that were pro developer.

Ha! More like post 5 articles in the past 5 days that are pro-developer.

Let's see them then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

No, you could (and we should) significantly increase density in places like Tenleytown and Friendship Heights, near Metro, and that wouldn’t be “gentrification” of those neighborhoods because virtually everyone who lives there already is already wealthy. They’re not always synonymous.

Or not pro-developer !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a news source. It’s a pretty well-documented PR outlet for developers.

Really?


Post links to 5 articles in the last month that were pro developer.

Ha! More like post 5 articles in the past 5 days that are pro-developer.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a news source. It’s a pretty well-documented PR outlet for developers.

Really?


Post links to 5 articles in the last month that were pro developer.