Anonymous wrote:The only way to bring housing costs down is to build more densely. That means building higher.

Shrug. It’s the only option. We have to build higher.

No developer is going to build tall affordable housing. Ask the folks in New York and San Francisco how that theory is planning out.

In fact, by tearing down older class B and C apartment buildings in Upper NW which have a lot of rent controlled units to build luxury buildings, the stock of affordable housing will be reduced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

1. I agree that a real build out analysis needs to reflect possible upzonings

2. But it needs to be politically realistic. "We will build mid rises in every neighborhood that is currently detached SFHs" is not politically realistic.

3. Raising the height act does not necessarily mean skyscrapers.

4. Each new building that is built AT the current height limit is a lost opportunity.

Yes, obviously I am not advocating for mid-rises throughout R-20 neighborhoods like Georgetown, Glover Park, AU Park, etc.

The rowhouse next door to mine (we share a wall) is in the process of being flipped. The developer is building a gigantic rectangular box of "luxury" that he will sell for $2.3 million at the max height and lot coverage for my neighborhood (35' high, 3 above-ground stories). The problem? It's one damn unit and he's not allowed to sell it as 3 condos. I'd rather see three $900K condos in that prime corner lot in my very desirable neighborhood.

Instead, he's maximizing profit under the current code and will probably sell to one of the law partner DINKs who inhabit the gigantic new houses in my 'hood. They don't even bother to fill the entire 6 bedroom house with furniture because there's just way more space than they need. There's a serious misallocation and under-utilization of badly needed housing square footage in many prime areas of DC due to a politically twisted zoning code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

Wut?

Are you seriouisly implying that folks who want believe in adding more housing supply via taller buildings are aging ex-rioters? Former black panthers turned smart growthers?

No idea who they are, but what I know is that we don't need to hear any stupid lectures about how they harmed "our city"

Am I think only one who actually think it's plausible that there are black panthers cum smart growthers, and not bothered by it? :0

I don't think its plausible, no.

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

1. I agree that a real build out analysis needs to reflect possible upzonings

2. But it needs to be politically realistic. "We will build mid rises in every neighborhood that is currently detached SFHs" is not politically realistic.

3. Raising the height act does not necessarily mean skyscrapers.

4. Each new building that is built AT the current height limit is a lost opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

The issue is also Historic District restrictions on pop ups. If you could pop up and subdivide into condos, you could add density. There does not really seem to be space in neighborhoods like the Hill to subdivide lots or build multifamily (other than in the commercial zoned areas, where they already seem to be doing it). Most Hill lots are probably not even big enough or correctly situated to build an ADU.

So we should revise limits in real historic districts, in order to preserve an arbitrary limit established based on 19th century fire fighting equipment? I would say historic districts contribute more to the character of the city, than making sure buildins in Navy Yard are mid rises and not high rises.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

Wut?

Are you seriouisly implying that folks who want believe in adding more housing supply via taller buildings are aging ex-rioters? Former black panthers turned smart growthers?

No idea who they are, but what I know is that we don't need to hear any stupid lectures about how they harmed "our city"

Am I think only one who actually think it's plausible that there are black panthers cum smart growthers, and not bothered by it? :0

Nah, all those stupid folks are already dead or in jail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

I work in the city. We had guests from out of town, and we drove by my office building. They commented on how nice it is that you don't feel overwhelmed by high rises in the city, how pretty the city is, how healthy the trees look and how you can see the sky. They commented that this should be the model for all cities.

And why are you trying to make this thread some sort of war against Ward 3? Is that the buzz word for getting the rest of DC to vote for something that will harm them? Shame on you.

Wait, so you work in the city, presumably don't live here (or live in AU Park, Palisades, or some similar suburban "DC" neighborhood), and think the height restrictions should remain because your out of town guests think it's pretty, and that's how all cities should be?

In the immortal words of Motley Crue, don't go away mad . . . just go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

Wut?

Are you seriouisly implying that folks who want believe in adding more housing supply via taller buildings are aging ex-rioters? Former black panthers turned smart growthers?

No idea who they are, but what I know is that we don't need to hear any stupid lectures about how they harmed "our city"

Am I think only one who actually think it's plausible that there are black panthers cum smart growthers, and not bothered by it? :0

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

The issue is also Historic District restrictions on pop ups. If you could pop up and subdivide into condos, you could add density. There does not really seem to be space in neighborhoods like the Hill to subdivide lots or build multifamily (other than in the commercial zoned areas, where they already seem to be doing it). Most Hill lots are probably not even big enough or correctly situated to build an ADU.

Hope this happens

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

Wut?

Are you seriouisly implying that folks who want believe in adding more housing supply via taller buildings are aging ex-rioters? Former black panthers turned smart growthers?

No idea who they are, but what I know is that we don't need to hear any stupid lectures about how they harmed "our city"

I honestly don't think taller buildings are necessary. What needs to happen is increased density in close-in neighborhoods. My neighborhood is zoned R-20, as are many very desirable parts of DC that are close to public transport and walkable amenities.

What does R-20 stipulate? It requires that homes remain single family; they cannot be subdivided into separately titled units. Similar zoning code types can be found throughout the city. The same issue plagues inner MoCo areas like Bethesda and Chevy Chase, where there is high demand for housing but NIMBY'ist zoning policies prevent the subdivision of lots or building multi-unit apartment-style housing (even if high end).

Before we build skyscrapers, I suggested the Council further explore the expansion and sub-division of existing plats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

WTAF are you saying? Only those "urbanites" care about density? Did they drive you further into Upper Caucasia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?

Wut?

Are you seriouisly implying that folks who want believe in adding more housing supply via taller buildings are aging ex-rioters? Former black panthers turned smart growthers?

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

You won't be one of the urbanites who burned, destroyed and corrupted the city in the 60s, 70s and 80s, correct?