Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

Different pp here. Your link doesn't show what you think it does. While it does show population growth in areas over time, it doesn't actually prove your point that the argument is "lost". You would have to do a similar study and ask people why they're living in the suburbs because many people want a house but cannot afford it in the city which they prefer. They don't want to live in a condo forever but perhaps they would live in a rowhouse but they cost too much therefore they moved out of the city.

Yep. People go to where the housing is cheapest. Housing is cheapest in undesirable, low-density exurbs full of new-build subdivisions.

Just another desperate NIMBY distorting facts post-hoc to fit their narrative.

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

Different pp here. Your link doesn't show what you think it does. While it does show population growth in areas over time, it doesn't actually prove your point that the argument is "lost". You would have to do a similar study and ask people why they're living in the suburbs because many people want a house but cannot afford it in the city which they prefer. They don't want to live in a condo forever but perhaps they would live in a rowhouse but they cost too much therefore they moved out of the city.

“ Berkeley, they’re all for anti-SFH...well except where all the politicians live. That needs to be a historic district. Your neighborhood though should double the density and triple the occupancy.”

I feel like this is always the case. Same with schools - this advocating for things that most MC families do not want tend to be walled off from the impacts either in private schools or in universally well off schools.

I’ve yet to me anyone who describes themselves as YIMBY that actually owns and will actually be affected by the project in question.

In Berkeley, they’re all for anti-SFH...well except where all the politicians live. That needs to be a historic district. Your neighborhood though should double the density and triple the occupancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

If you buy a SFH in a neighorhood of SFHs, then you very likely want a neighborhood of SFHs. Rather than destroy neighorhoods of SFHs, lets spend money on improving poorer neighborhoods. More parks, better schools, better infrastructure.

I totally agree.

Hello! Makes sense!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

If you buy a SFH in a neighorhood of SFHs, then you very likely want a neighborhood of SFHs. Rather than destroy neighorhoods of SFHs, lets spend money on improving poorer neighborhoods. More parks, better schools, better infrastructure.

I totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What makes you think any of this (which sounds great to me) would be less "charming" than empty parking lots or abandoned department stores are? My kids would be thrilled if there was a Five Below in the neighborhood, for what it's worth. And I don't care about the traffic impact, because I can walk to Metro or bike to work. Or, if I had to drive, I could just... plan for there to be more traffic and add time to my commute. We don't have a right to avoid any and all potential minor inconveniences just because we already live here.

+1000

Bravo

(another ward 3 resident who is tired and worn down from all of the NIMBYs who have been playing chicken little for decades and despite them, things have changed without any real negative impacts)

Maybe a muffler shop and a pawn shop too??

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

If you buy a SFH in a neighorhood of SFHs, then you very likely want a neighborhood of SFHs. Rather than destroy neighorhoods of SFHs, lets spend money on improving poorer neighborhoods. More parks, better schools, better infrastructure.

YIMBYS/Market Urbanists have officially lost the argument. Nationally, people prefer low density suburbs. That is what they want. The data speaks for itself.

[twitter] https://mobile.twitter.com/JedKolko/status/1387407499272212482[/twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:
You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Upzoning Ward 3 would create more housing units. This would create more places for people to live. Prices in other parts of DC would go down.

This is why upzoning reduces gentrification.

So, you are for destroying rich SFH neighborhoods but not for destroying poorer areas. On what basis? Why not simply improve poorer neighborhoods?

How are rich SFH areas being destroyed? Please share examples.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

Frankly, I don't care what your considerations are, but you should probably be aware that your preferences are rooted in ignorance. (And, by the way, thanks for finally admitting that you would wish to exercise dictatorial control over other people's land!)

Do you know what “dictatorial control” means? It seems not. People who disagree with you are allowed to have opinions too. Just as you want to fight for more density, I have the right to fight to keep my neighborhood similar to its current state.

Also, there’s nothing necessarily ignorant about liking your neighborhood and not wanting it to change. Now you’re just being silly.

It seems you're the one who doesn't know what dictatorial control means. I'm not fighting for increased density, though I do very much enjoy the benefits increased density brings. I believe that property owners should be able to do as they wish with their properties. You're the one who believes you should be given a voice to prevent property owners from doing what they wish.

And yes, it is profoundly ignorant to want your neighborhood to never change. Change is constant. Change is good. Change is what makes cities and suburbs desirable places to live, work, and play. Change is what gives areas like DC a high quality of life and a dynamic economy.

Wrong. Change is neutral. It can be good or bad. Do you think your family members and loved ones dying is good? Because that’s change.

Your opinion about what gives DC high quality of life is simply different from mine, and I’m not inclined to defer to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:
You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Upzoning Ward 3 would create more housing units. This would create more places for people to live. Prices in other parts of DC would go down.

This is why upzoning reduces gentrification.

So, you are for destroying rich SFH neighborhoods but not for destroying poorer areas. On what basis? Why not simply improve poorer neighborhoods?

How are rich SFH areas being destroyed? Please share examples.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

Frankly, I don't care what your considerations are, but you should probably be aware that your preferences are rooted in ignorance. (And, by the way, thanks for finally admitting that you would wish to exercise dictatorial control over other people's land!)

Do you know what “dictatorial control” means? It seems not. People who disagree with you are allowed to have opinions too. Just as you want to fight for more density, I have the right to fight to keep my neighborhood similar to its current state.

Also, there’s nothing necessarily ignorant about liking your neighborhood and not wanting it to change. Now you’re just being silly.

It seems you're the one who doesn't know what dictatorial control means. I'm not fighting for increased density, though I do very much enjoy the benefits increased density brings. I believe that property owners should be able to do as they wish with their properties. You're the one who believes you should be given a voice to prevent property owners from doing what they wish.

And yes, it is profoundly ignorant to want your neighborhood to never change. Change is constant. Change is good. Change is what makes cities and suburbs desirable places to live, work, and play. Change is what gives areas like DC a high quality of life and a dynamic economy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:
You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Upzoning Ward 3 would create more housing units. This would create more places for people to live. Prices in other parts of DC would go down.

This is why upzoning reduces gentrification.

So, you are for destroying rich SFH neighborhoods but not for destroying poorer areas. On what basis? Why not simply improve poorer neighborhoods?

How are rich SFH areas being destroyed? Please share examples.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

Frankly, I don't care what your considerations are, but you should probably be aware that your preferences are rooted in ignorance. (And, by the way, thanks for finally admitting that you would wish to exercise dictatorial control over other people's land!)

Do you know what “dictatorial control” means? It seems not. People who disagree with you are allowed to have opinions too. Just as you want to fight for more density, I have the right to fight to keep my neighborhood similar to its current state.

Also, there’s nothing necessarily ignorant about liking your neighborhood and not wanting it to change. Now you’re just being silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

If yours is in a Single Family Home neighborhood, and you are in DC proper, then you need to understand that at the moment, there is no proposal to change your single family home zoning.

If there were such a proposal, I would absolutely oppose it. And I don’t think it would be particularly selfish of me to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:
You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Upzoning Ward 3 would create more housing units. This would create more places for people to live. Prices in other parts of DC would go down.

This is why upzoning reduces gentrification.

So, you are for destroying rich SFH neighborhoods but not for destroying poorer areas. On what basis? Why not simply improve poorer neighborhoods?

How are rich SFH areas being destroyed? Please share examples.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

Frankly, I don't care what your considerations are, but you should probably be aware that your preferences are rooted in ignorance. (And, by the way, thanks for finally admitting that you would wish to exercise dictatorial control over other people's land!)

Anonymous wrote:

What makes you think any of this (which sounds great to me) would be less "charming" than empty parking lots or abandoned department stores are? My kids would be thrilled if there was a Five Below in the neighborhood, for what it's worth. And I don't care about the traffic impact, because I can walk to Metro or bike to work. Or, if I had to drive, I could just... plan for there to be more traffic and add time to my commute. We don't have a right to avoid any and all potential minor inconveniences just because we already live here.

+1000

Bravo

(another ward 3 resident who is tired and worn down from all of the NIMBYs who have been playing chicken little for decades and despite them, things have changed without any real negative impacts)