Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

Didn’t you just literally define NIMBYism? Build it over there…but not here?

YIMBYs never want to upzone their own neighborhoods. It's always someone else's neighborhood that has to change. Someone else is always the bad guy, it's never them. Hence, Yes in Your Back Yard.

Huh? That again is the definition of NIMBYism…you are confused

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

DC is filled with people that worked for the government or an NPO and don’t understand how business works.

God forbid they ever tried starting their own business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

Didn’t you just literally define NIMBYism? Build it over there…but not here?

YIMBYs never want to upzone their own neighborhoods. It's always someone else's neighborhood that has to change. Someone else is always the bad guy, it's never them. Hence, Yes in Your Back Yard.

For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a ton of demand for brand new $1.5-$2m townhouses. Are you kidding? A ton.

Agree 100% If DC had more seasonably priced townhouses, they would be less demand for SFHs.

$2 million townhouses are not "reasonably priced," and anyway, houses in Friendship Heights sell for between $1.5 and $2 million (somewhat ludicrously), so pricing townhouses at that level wouldn't do anything to make the neighborhood more affordable or to really change demand for the homes. I say this as someone whose own house in FH is, allegedly, worth about $1.6 million, a price I think is completely absurd but one that doesn't really matter anyway because I'm not moving any time soon...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s true. Our planners have lost the ability to plan communities with diverse living options. All these new condos look alike and the Wisconsin Ave plan is virtually identical to the Connecticut Avenue plan. No thought. No creativity. No imagination.

If you stripped away single family zoning, there could be all sort of imagination around different size and shape buildings that could house one, two or many families. But when the zoning s either single family OR medium to high density, then you get single family home or multifamily buildings. If you want the "gentle density" that you seem to be pushing for, then that is a different discussion. But you aren't going to get low density on a high impact transportation corridor.

I’m pretty sure that you don’t need to eliminate SFH zoning in order to get the desired mix of density, that’s just lazy planning.

You don't need to eliminate SFH zoning, but you can't have this type of density in areas that are zoned for only SFH occupancy.

Anonymous wrote:They razed some houses at garrison and Wisconsin and rebuilt them into painfully small units, some with only 1-2 windows, some below ground. I looked at a 2 bed/2bath — 700 square feet for $750k. I don’t know if they ever sold, but nothing was gained by razing those houses.

Pretty sure they all sold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

Didn’t you just literally define NIMBYism? Build it over there…but not here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

... I live in upper NW.

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

Friendship Heights is a suburb of Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build 100-200 townhouses in and near upper Wisc, they all would not be $1M plus. EYA tends to be at the higher end. If they can do it at Westbard, it can be done at upper Wisc Avenue.

Pretty sure they would be $1m plus. You want them because they’re attractive to you, and many people will feel the same, so they will have a high value.

I think there is a difference between only a few townhouses and 200 townhouses. I doubt the market demand is there for 200 townhouses at $1.5-$2M. And, even if there were market demand, DC then ends up with a bunch of new rich people living in DC, paying a variety of taxes, or moving out of SFHs allowing others to move into SFHs. Latter is a good thing as well. DC needs the revenues.

With absolutely no amenities for the neighborhood…sounds terrible.

There is already plenty of amenities in the area, including several grocery stores, restaurants, etc. And, yes, some commercial activities along Western or Wisc would be fine.

No there isn’t…or I wouldn’t have written my statement.

I would take just getting back to FH 2005…there is 85% less compared to what existed.

Anonymous wrote:There is a ton of demand for brand new $1.5-$2m townhouses. Are you kidding? A ton.

Agree 100% If DC had more seasonably priced townhouses, they would be less demand for SFHs.