Anonymous
05/28/2019 16:02
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
How about just making a law saying 15%of new development needs to be affordable housing, and coincide with current height requirement? Not sure how raising a bit makes a bit of difference
Well for one, that would represent a "taking" and might require compensating a land owner who can already build by right. (the existing IZ requirement goes alongside a density bonus)
At some point you make the AH requirements too onerous, and the developer just won't build (they will leave whatever the existing use is) and you get zero AH units. As well as zero market rate units. Which latter are also needed.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 15:46
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
How about just making a law saying 15%of new development needs to be affordable housing, and coincide with current height requirement? Not sure how raising a bit makes a bit of difference
Anonymous
05/28/2019 15:04
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
That is one possible approach.
That would be a meaningless trade off. Current law already requires 10 inclusive zoning units for all but the smallest projects. And frequently PUDs include more than 10 percent. The developer lobby would take 15 percent in a heartbeat for relaxing the height limit, laughing all the way.
So allow a limited number of parcels with increased height, and auction the rights. If there is still value after the affordable housing requirement, that will result in positive bids for the rights.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 14:02
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
That is one possible approach.
That would be a meaningless trade off. Current law already requires 10 inclusive zoning units for all but the smallest projects. And frequently PUDs include more than 10 percent. The developer lobby would take 15 percent in a heartbeat for relaxing the height limit, laughing all the way.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 12:39
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
That is one possible approach.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 12:38
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
Where do you think the new residents will come from? Spontaneous generation of yuppies?
Anonymous
05/28/2019 12:36
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
There was a recent, deeply written article on SF and how horrible it's become with its "growth" and how everyone pretty much hates it and is miserable.
"no one goes there anymore, its too crowded"
I'm happy to "look out" and put the brakes on this growth. To what end? DC is vibrant and has good balance right now. We have a built in employer (FEDS) and some nice pop ups. All neighborhoods wi eventually be "discovered"
And be gentrified and become all white and UMC except for committed affordable housing. Is that the DC you want?
and we should "look out" for really thoughtful, human scale development that is mixed income and win win. We should continue to improve mass transit.
As noted, density supports transit, transit supports (and is justified) by density. L'Enfant Plaza is at the junction of FIVE metro lines. It is far from vibrant. Allowing taller denser buildings there seems like a no brainer to me.
Let the tech and high rises go to the suburbs.
There is already talk about SOME Amazon employees reverse commuting from DC.
Too bad SF didnt do this.
Most tech employment in the Bay Area IS in the suburbs. They just ended up with lots of reverse commuting. While Arlington is more friendly to urbanist growth than most SF suburbs are, moving more employment growth there will mean demand in DC. I suppose you could hope for all tech growth to be out past Dulles. With lots of added sprawl, lots more auto trips, lots more green house gases. It might preserve your quiet block in DC, at the expense of the region and the planet.
People who buy in the outer suburbs are looking for a particular type of house with a nice fenced yard for kids and a dog, at a more reasonable price than closer in. It is not the same demographic as would rent or buy in some upscale flat above a CAVA in DC. The notion that DC needs to be massively upznned to prevent suburban sprawl is a red herring.
Prices control everything. If we could have an affordable 3BR condo in the city, we wouldn't necessarily be living in the suburbs. But I'm not going to pay these current DC prices
No developer is going to build many "affordable" 3BR condos in the city, height limit or not. Even in new luxury projects today, where 3 BR units could command a premium, developers all follow the same model: studio, I BR and 1 BR with "den", all aimed at the young-professional market segment, disposable income and no kids.
There are more single person households than there are existing studios and 1BRs. Single people solve their affordability problem, often, by sharing existing older, 3BR apts and houses. Outbidding families. As long as that is the case smaller units will rent for a premium, and developers will build them. Allow MORE studios and 1BR's and you released more of the larger units for folks who really want them.
This is not what happens. Young people move into 3 and 4 bedrooms because they can’t afford their own one bedroom or studio.
PP you are responding to - I am confused, is that not exactly what I said? Except I believe that building more studios and 1BRs will hold down or even bring down the rents for such units.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 10:28
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
I am in favor of raising height limits a bit only if we can be sure that a significant proportion (at least 15%, perhaps?) of new development is devoted to affordable housing.
Anonymous
05/28/2019 10:25
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Man how do you support this? It sounds like a great move for the city.
This is a developer play which is why Bowser is prostituting herself again to do their bidding. For fatter margins, raising not eliminating the height restriction would forever alter one of the most distinctive and attractive feature about Washington DC.
100 % agree. And once uncorked, there is no putting the genie back.in the bottle.
Anonymous
05/27/2019 12:42
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
In the city, green spaces and shade trees and resulting cooler spaces amid urban heat islands are definitely more environmentally friendly. Hip upscale, mixed-use condo towers will neither bring prices down nor save corn fields in Frederick County. Different market segments, different residential demographics.
Anonymous
05/27/2019 09:34
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
I support this. It will help bring down housing costs, and greater density is more environmentally friendly.
Anonymous
05/27/2019 09:25
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Typo : raising or eliminating
Anonymous
05/27/2019 09:25
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Man how do you support this? It sounds like a great move for the city.
This is a developer play which is why Bowser is prostituting herself again to do their bidding. For fatter margins, raising not eliminating the height restriction would forever alter one of the most distinctive and attractive feature about Washington DC.
Anonymous
05/26/2019 16:31
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Man how do you support this? It sounds like a great move for the city.
Anonymous
05/25/2019 22:14
Subject: Say NO to Bowser on changing building height limits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there a vote on this? I'm definitely against removing the height restriction and want to make sure I have a say.
Ha! If this moves forward, the Bowser Admin is likely to do it as “emergency legislation,” meaning rushed hearings and process.
So tired of that!