Anonymous wrote:

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

A few might. But even if not, all market segments in the regioin are connected to some degree - the flats above sweetgreen might draw some singles living together sharing a rowhouse, which might draw a couple with one kid and no dog from a SFH in Bethesda, which yes, might draw someone from Germantown.

Or to think of it another way, if we do NOT build flats for people, they are going to go somewhere. At some point that leads to something being built somewhere else. If we restrict development in all the already developed areas (and the arguments against for NW DC are repeated in almost the same terms in Arlington, in Bethesda, etc) then they will go to sprawlville. Directly or indirectly.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

I am quite sure GGW has not. Some market urbanists who are more focused on the market part than the urban part maybe, but not GGW. And their ally, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, was originally formed with help from the Piedmont Environmental Council, as part of a case for rural preservation. Thats why they have that name - when they opposed sprawl, they wanted to make clear they did not oppose ALL growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

Anonymous wrote:

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

A few might. But even if not, all market segments in the regioin are connected to some degree - the flats above sweetgreen might draw some singles living together sharing a rowhouse, which might draw a couple with one kid and no dog from a SFH in Bethesda, which yes, might draw someone from Germantown.

Or to think of it another way, if we do NOT build flats for people, they are going to go somewhere. At some point that leads to something being built somewhere else. If we restrict development in all the already developed areas (and the arguments against for NW DC are repeated in almost the same terms in Arlington, in Bethesda, etc) then they will go to sprawlville. Directly or indirectly.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

I am quite sure GGW has not. Some market urbanists who are more focused on the market part than the urban part maybe, but not GGW. And their ally, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, was originally formed with help from the Piedmont Environmental Council, as part of a case for rural preservation. Thats why they have that name - when they opposed sprawl, they wanted to make clear they did not oppose ALL growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Except you are allowed to build apartments on public transport outside of NW DC-- which would have the exact same effect.

Great - we should be building apartments near public transport in NW DC and everywhere else that has high quality public transport including in the suburbs.

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Except you are allowed to build apartments on public transport outside of NW DC-- which would have the exact same effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Except you are allowed to build apartments on public transport outside of NW DC-- which would have the exact same effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Uh huh. Like the family with two kids and a dog and want a yard north of Germantown will find an upscale flat above a Sweetgreen in DC to be a substitute.

Don’t forget - Greater Greater Washington and its allies have actually argued against the Montgomery County Agriculture Preserve but now they piously invoke preservation of the countryside to argue for upzoning and lots of infill development in Ward 3. The only connection to the countryside that many of these so-called “urbanists” have is the horse shit that they are trying to sell us.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On this planet, where we face global warming, due in large part to auto emissions created by long commutes - where it certainly makes sense to add more density in places served by transit, that are walkable and bikeable, and where even auto commutes are going to be short.

And in this case where it can be done without creating gentrification, since these are not poor neighborhoods.

I'd prefer to just get rid of cattle farming. There are lots of places to tackle global warming before covering low density neighborhoods with concrete.
--mostly vegetarian

I don't think we can afford to pass up any tool (and getting the world to give up meat will involve as much sacrifice, and more intervention in people's lives, than liberalizing zoning in affluent neighborhoods.

Also of course allowing more dense development in places like NW DC will actually mean less concrete in low density places - it will mean less sprawl, more of the countryside preserved.