Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately I live in a historic district where the community does care about what goes in and the aesthetics are regulated. I understand not everyone wants that, but I chose to live and invest in such an area.

The aesthetics were not regulated when people were building the buildings that are now in the historic district.

You mean back when there were actual craftsmen designing and building buildings, where details and nuance help shaped what was being built? You won't get that today because everything is built to be temporary - using plywood and tyvek as core materials on timber that is not old-growth. There is no way I would buy a house made in the last 15-20 years as anything more than a temporary dwelling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live two blocks from Wisconsin, and I don't mind renters living nearby. I like it. But I do worry about overbuilding that will lead to vacancies that will be filled with voucher holders. The influx of voucher holders without services has not been good for the community. And, per my council member, there is no $$ in the budget for anything extra next year or in the short-term, so those needed services are unlikely to materialize.

Voucher holders won't be living in units that cost over $2500/mo. That isn't how this works.

Yes it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet there is still talk of bike lanes on Connecticut and replacing functioning gas stoves, "extras" by most peoples' definition...

If we know that gas fumes are bad for humans, and there are incentives to replace them with electric that don't have fumes that cause health problems, then what is the problem? No one is forcing you to replace a gas stove, but if you are doing a substantial renovation, given what we know today, why would anyone use them now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live two blocks from Wisconsin, and I don't mind renters living nearby. I like it. But I do worry about overbuilding that will lead to vacancies that will be filled with voucher holders. The influx of voucher holders without services has not been good for the community. And, per my council member, there is no $$ in the budget for anything extra next year or in the short-term, so those needed services are unlikely to materialize.

Voucher holders won't be living in units that cost over $2500/mo. That isn't how this works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet there is still talk of bike lanes on Connecticut and replacing functioning gas stoves, "extras" by most peoples' definition...

If we know that gas fumes are bad for humans, and there are incentives to replace them with electric that don't have fumes that cause health problems, then what is the problem? No one is forcing you to replace a gas stove, but if you are doing a substantial renovation, given what we know today, why would anyone use them now?

Anonymous wrote:Yet there is still talk of bike lanes on Connecticut and replacing functioning gas stoves, "extras" by most peoples' definition...

Anonymous wrote:I live two blocks from Wisconsin, and I don't mind renters living nearby. I like it. But I do worry about overbuilding that will lead to vacancies that will be filled with voucher holders. The influx of voucher holders without services has not been good for the community. And, per my council member, there is no $$ in the budget for anything extra next year or in the short-term, so those needed services are unlikely to materialize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately I live in a historic district where the community does care about what goes in and the aesthetics are regulated. I understand not everyone wants that, but I chose to live and invest in such an area.

The aesthetics were not regulated when people were building the buildings that are now in the historic district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is that NWDC neighborhoods are so appealing that we should densify them so more people can live there. What the proponents get wrong is what makes the neighborhoods appealing -- safe residential areas with green space and good schools. Of course, you can add some density to those areas, but there is a tipping point where the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable. I love the fact that there is a mix of condos, townhomes, and single family homes in my neighborhood, but it's a balance and if it were to tip over into primarily big buildings with condos, it would lose what makes it special. It is nice to have neighborhoods like Navy Yard for people who choose that lifestyle, but it's also ok for other neighborhoods to have a predominance of single family homes. Our city can have different types of neighborhoods.

What you mean by "the neighborhoods will no longer be desirable" is "it's not what I would want." However, you are not everyone, and land use should not be based on your - or my, or anyone's - personal preferences.

Sorry. Agree 100% with previous post. DC should avoid changing radically the character of NWDC. Those residents pay the bills in DC and are entirely why DC has done economically well until recently. Moreover, there are plenty of places in DC where larger condo or apartment buildings can be built. There simply is no need to push the balance to a tipping point.

How would adding housing on commercial corridors radically change the character of NWDC? No one is talking about putting massive apartment buildings in the side streets.

How would adding thousands of new people (units) to a 2-mile stretch change the character of the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to that corridor? Are you seriously asking this question?

Yes, I am. Do the apartment buildings on Connecticut near Woodley Park and Cleveland Park make the SFH blocks there worse somehow?

Well, when they are stuffed full of unscreened voucher recipients they do .

People have already answered your question - schools, traffic, light, nuisance tenants if Frumin is involved, aesthetics (depending on what's put up - it's not always the best architecture), parking, misplaced focus on more residences not commerce and dining which is far more needed, etc etc

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately I live in a historic district where the community does care about what goes in and the aesthetics are regulated. I understand not everyone wants that, but I chose to live and invest in such an area.

Anonymous wrote:Fortunately I live in a historic district where the community does care about what goes in and the aesthetics are regulated. I understand not everyone wants that, but I chose to live and invest in such an area.