Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Singapore is about as densely populated as it comes, and they had very few Coronavirus deaths.

You do know Singapore is pretty much a really pleasant police state, full of 3rd country nationals who scrub everything round the clock?

This.

Is this what you want for the US? No thanks. Though I guess it sometimes feels that we’re headed in that direction. Maybe this is why there is so much support for undocumented immigrants. Make sure there is a strong class of people to scrub the floors and clean everything up.

Anonymous wrote:Singapore is about as densely populated as it comes, and they had very few Coronavirus deaths.

You do know Singapore is pretty much a really pleasant police state, full of 3rd country nationals who scrub everything round the clock?

Exactly. In order to have density you need a forward thinking, functional government. You need a society that values the environment and public transportation.

Anonymous wrote:Looks pretty good to me know in Singapore and Taiwan and Hong Kong...

Helps to have a functional government though.

And a home-made mask!

Singapore is about as densely populated as it comes, and they had very few Coronavirus deaths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

Whatever happened to the shelter updates? There has not been one since February. Was the ribbon cutting ceremony in March. Those 'dormitory' designed buildings are not going to seem ideal now.

That was the main input from the ANC commissioners, to build two lower height buildings on the site, to look more like residential garden apartment buildings and to be more compatible height and scale of the
houses next to the site. But DC insisted on a single tower to save money on security, etc. I agree, now for other reasons having every one concentrated in one tower doesn’t seem ideal.

One tower with every two apartments of families sharing one bathroom, no apartment kitchens -rather a dorm style microwave communal set up on each floor? Yeah, genius.

That sounds awful. Like some kinda Hunger Games type of stuff.

This isn’t Chevy Chase. You be in DC!

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking that a once-in-a-century health event is an actual argument against smart growth that sets up affordability, sustainability, and accessibility for generations to come.

Or what's even worse and sadly more likely, imagine knowing how ridiculous that is yet going right ahead and using a disaster that will likely kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans to push your personal NIMBY agenda.

"smart growth" is another meaningless buzz phrase used by hacks.

"affordability"? no housing has gotten cheaper in places like Seattle, DC, NYC, LA, Boston, Nashville where 100s of new mid and high-rises have gone up since 2010. this is just a barefaced lie perpetuated by greedy developers and their hack puppets. let me guess, they just didn't build them high enough!

It doesn't seem like the plan is to move families to independence if they make them (and their kids) share bathrooms with strangers and don't provide the means to manage their own cooking. Add on COVID social distancing mess. Ugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

Whatever happened to the shelter updates? There has not been one since February. Was the ribbon cutting ceremony in March. Those 'dormitory' designed buildings are not going to seem ideal now.

That was the main input from the ANC commissioners, to build two lower height buildings on the site, to look more like residential garden apartment buildings and to be more compatible height and scale of the
houses next to the site. But DC insisted on a single tower to save money on security, etc. I agree, now for other reasons having every one concentrated in one tower doesn’t seem ideal.

One tower with every two apartments of families sharing one bathroom, no apartment kitchens -rather a dorm style microwave communal set up on each floor? Yeah, genius.

That sounds awful. Like some kinda Hunger Games type of stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

Whatever happened to the shelter updates? There has not been one since February. Was the ribbon cutting ceremony in March. Those 'dormitory' designed buildings are not going to seem ideal now.

That was the main input from the ANC commissioners, to build two lower height buildings on the site, to look more like residential garden apartment buildings and to be more compatible height and scale of the
houses next to the site. But DC insisted on a single tower to save money on security, etc. I agree, now for other reasons having every one concentrated in one tower doesn’t seem ideal.

One tower with every two apartments of families sharing one bathroom, no apartment kitchens -rather a dorm style microwave communal set up on each floor? Yeah, genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

Whatever happened to the shelter updates? There has not been one since February. Was the ribbon cutting ceremony in March. Those 'dormitory' designed buildings are not going to seem ideal now.

That was the main input from the ANC commissioners, to build two lower height buildings on the site, to look more like residential garden apartment buildings and to be more compatible height and scale of the
houses next to the site. But DC insisted on a single tower to save money on security, etc. I agree, now for other reasons having every one concentrated in one tower doesn’t seem ideal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

Whatever happened to the shelter updates? There has not been one since February. Was the ribbon cutting ceremony in March. Those 'dormitory' designed buildings are not going to seem ideal now.

Bowser is a shameless shill (a polite euphemism for what she really is) for Big DC Developers, Inc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one opposed the Park Van Ness project. No. One.

Factually incorrect.

ANC supported it. There may have been a couple of individuals, but nothing like what you see in entitled neighborhoods like Cleveland Park or Tenleytown/Friendship Heights.

“Entitled”? Cleveland Park has the homeless shelter for Ward 3 and Eaton is the designated school for it. No other neighborhood wanted to touch the shelter.

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..."

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!

If neighbors had engaged around design rather than oppose and fight, perhaps there could have been a different result. They didn't learn from their protracted Cathedral Commons opposition.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. ANC commissioners and a Ward 3 advisory group handpicked by Cheh tried desperately to engage on configuration and design, but were spurned by the Department of Aging and DGS. Their objective was to build the shelter as quickly and cheaply as possible. It can on the heels of a rushed and truncated approval process for the site, with all of the shelters lumped together in one up or down council vote after virtually no public testimony. Now we know why: Bowser needed to close DC General at the earliest opportunity to put the well-locates site up for development.