Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.
Factually incorrect.
Anonymous wrote:Council Chairman Phil Mendelson recently tweeted that the District id Columbia is the densest state or territory in the I
United States. But developers and their “smart growth” cheerleaders say that’s not nearly enough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.
Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."
If the planning process and aesthetics of the "new Ward 3" shelter, now built are indicative of "proposed projects" to be pushed through by the same Mayor and Council, then these proposed projects are toast. They had a chance to do something a little more slowly, and thoughtfully and properly, and took short-cuts. Bye--eee!
Anonymous wrote:increasing density is an excellent way to spread things like coronavirus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:increasing density is an excellent way to spread things like coronavirus
False premise. The rural areas are infected too. The good news, in the high density areas, there are resources and many health care providers and many food shopping options to bare the crush. If you lived in a county with one country hospital and a few grocery stores, things would be pretty bleak.
Ummm have you seen NYC? Yeah that kinda kills your argument.
Besides, rural areas are typically pretty well off. You act as if they’re all poor trailer park hillbillies.
“Typically pretty well off”? Bullshit.
Anonymous wrote:I'm really looking forwarding to revisiting this thread in a month when Covid19 is ripping through and devastating rural communities in this country where the average person is in poorer health and the health care system is far less robust and flexible than it is in most urban areas.
Or coming back in 2 weeks when Covid19 is spreading like wildfire in sprawling and suburban LA.
Or posting all the articles about the wealthy who have fled cities in the Northeast to avoid this debacle but then find themselves in wealthy enclaves in FL that suddenly are overwhelmed but then they are stuck when they try to get back to the urban area they fled that has superior health care services and doctors.
This nightmare is going to force our society to revisit a lot of the ways we do and fund things in this country but nothing that has been posted on here from a couple of disgruntled & insecure NIMBYS from wealthy Ward 3 spouting non-sense while hiding in their expensive homes all day offers even a narrative argument for why this virus is going to be the end of urbanism globally or locally.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:increasing density is an excellent way to spread things like coronavirus
False premise. The rural areas are infected too. The good news, in the high density areas, there are resources and many health care providers and many food shopping options to bare the crush. If you lived in a county with one country hospital and a few grocery stores, things would be pretty bleak.
Ummm have you seen NYC? Yeah that kinda kills your argument.
Besides, rural areas are typically pretty well off. You act as if they’re all poor trailer park hillbillies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:increasing density is an excellent way to spread things like coronavirus
False premise. The rural areas are infected too. The good news, in the high density areas, there are resources and many health care providers and many food shopping options to bare the crush. If you lived in a county with one country hospital and a few grocery stores, things would be pretty bleak.
Anonymous wrote:
No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
There’s a big difference between thoughtful, balanced growth that respects and maintains neighborhood character and dense “smart growth” mixed-use generica that changes many of the quality of life elements that people value in their neighborhoods.
Yup. The difference is that everything anybody actually proposes falls into the latter category, and the only things in the former category are imaginary projects nobody is proposing to build. The way this works out in reality is, "I'm not opposed to change! I just don't support Proposed Project A, Proposed Project B, Proposed Project C, Proposed Project D..."
In NW DC, look at the BF Sauk Park Van Ness Or The Woodley projects, both of which were designed sensitively to add density while fitting within their surrounding context, with exquisite design detail. Very successful.
The Office of Planning proposing to allow 12 and 13 story buildings in a neighborhood historic district of one and two story buildings: incredibly inappropriate.
Both of them were strenuously opposed by people who say they support appropriate, balanced, thoughtful growth.
No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.