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?

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: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:

Anonymous wrote:My concern here is more with the proposed significant increases in density and in the height of the buildings. 12 story buildings next to SFH does not really work. Can the area really absorb another 20-25K residents? DC is not really growing in population. The slight 8K increase from 21 to 22, if duplicated over 10 years, is 80K new residents. Is Wisc Ave supposed to absorb 25% of that increase, assuming it happens?

Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:I mostly really don’t like you. I like these other things but intensely dislike our uncivil ANC reps in Ward 3 and am inclined to oppose anything flowing from that direction even when it’s not the usual fecal matter

That photo flipping a bird at the Ward 3 what done it

Anonymous wrote:The best part of driving into DC from MD is the transition to wide avenues and low buildings. Aaaah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not an aesthetics argument.

Its almost always an aesthetics argument though. We know developers will slap up some ugly disposable box made with Chinesium that will fall apart before you know it. Because that's what pencils out for the most profit for some private equity fund. Nobody wants to live next to that. People will live in it for a year or two because they lack other options, but no one is going to settle down in that kind of building. It will be transient central, suddenly full of cars still registered in IN, NY or FL.

That is until the building ages a bit and starts getting filled up with vouchers.

If the Carmelite Nuns or someone built a 12 story convent out of stone in the same spot, almost no one would object. Because they wouldn't bring a thousand cars with them, they would build roots in the neighborhood and the building would be beautiful.

To summarize, you don't like:

1. renters
2. buildings that aren't made out of stone
3. cars (or cars that aren't registered in DC, I'm not sure which)

Alrighty then!

Anonymous wrote:I mostly really don’t like you. I like these other things but intensely dislike our uncivil ANC reps in Ward 3 and am inclined to oppose anything flowing from that direction even when it’s not the usual fecal matter

That photo flipping a bird at the Ward 3 what done it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not an aesthetics argument.

Its almost always an aesthetics argument though. We know developers will slap up some ugly disposable box made with Chinesium that will fall apart before you know it. Because that's what pencils out for the most profit for some private equity fund. Nobody wants to live next to that. People will live in it for a year or two because they lack other options, but no one is going to settle down in that kind of building. It will be transient central, suddenly full of cars still registered in IN, NY or FL.

That is until the building ages a bit and starts getting filled up with vouchers.

If the Carmelite Nuns or someone built a 12 story convent out of stone in the same spot, almost no one would object. Because they wouldn't bring a thousand cars with them, they would build roots in the neighborhood and the building would be beautiful.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not an aesthetics argument.

Anonymous wrote:My concern here is more with the proposed significant increases in density and in the height of the buildings. 12 story buildings next to SFH does not really work. Can the area really absorb another 20-25K residents? DC is not really growing in population. The slight 8K increase from 21 to 22, if duplicated over 10 years, is 80K new residents. Is Wisc Ave supposed to absorb 25% of that increase, assuming it happens?