Anonymous wrote:DCs problem is a long term misfit between the amount of downtown office space and the amount of housing. There are acres of underused office buildings post-Covid. Rather than raise the height limit, tear them down and build apartments. Anyway, DCs population is falling - affordable housing will happen naturally as the city continues to decline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.

You realize that there are actual climate scientists here, right? The concensus findings of AR5 are that you have no clue what you talking about. I do find it funny that you have decided to come on the internet anonymously to larp as an expert.

I'll admit that I'm an economist, not a climate scientist by training, and there's surely literature on this topic that I'm not familiar with. Maybe I'm not the kind of expert you're looking for. But I have a PhD, know how to read papers, and I'm well trained in thinking about explicit and implicit costs. I'm not larping, thanks.

I read and remembered this paper because it got a bunch of popular press at the time it was released last year. The points I made are valid, the authors clearly call them out in the text.

If you want to provide a lit review, I'm all ears. I took a spin through the Buildings Chapter of AR5 and I see relatively little that talks about building height. There is some discussion of the role of compactness in reducing heating loads, and of roof surface area in installing photovoltaic cells.

So you did not read AR5, bit skimmed a WG chapter and you don’t even understand the findings that you did read? You don’t even know how to read AR5. Everything they say about economists is true. You should stay in your lane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

.

Yes. We’ve tried that, with suburban office parks.

And what’s wrong with suburban office parks? Norther Virginia has a ton and they all coincidentally have signs of the biggest and most dynamic companies in America on them: Oracle, AWS, Microsoft, Google, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to start with looking at low hanging fruit, like underutilized land. Doing away with historical designations and upzoning DuPont, Logan Circle and Capitol Hill would have a much bigger impact. It’s also more climate friendly. Tall buildings are not very climate friendly.

I assume you are referencing this study which came out last year:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

If so, you should know that this study has very serious limitations. One big one is that it doesn't attempt to account for differences in transportation or transportation infrastructure associated with different building methods. Higher density makes it economical to provide more extensive public transportation, and that gets people out of cars, reducing carbon emissions. Plus, commuting and other activities at high density typically require shorter travel distances, which reduces emissions regardless of the transportation method used.

A second is that it assumes a constant lifespan for buildings of 60 years regardless of the materials or methods used. High density buildings may be renovated or re-skinned, but the vast majority of skyscrapers are still standing, even ones over 100 years old. Lower buildings tend to have significantly shorter lifespans, which substantially offsets the higher fixed emissions costs associated with building taller buildings.

You realize that there are actual climate scientists here, right? The concensus findings of AR5 are that you have no clue what you talking about. I do find it funny that you have decided to come on the internet anonymously to larp as an expert.

I'll admit that I'm an economist, not a climate scientist by training, and there's surely literature on this topic that I'm not familiar with. Maybe I'm not the kind of expert you're looking for. But I have a PhD, know how to read papers, and I'm well trained in thinking about explicit and implicit costs. I'm not larping, thanks.

I read and remembered this paper because it got a bunch of popular press at the time it was released last year. The points I made are valid, the authors clearly call them out in the text.

If you want to provide a lit review, I'm all ears. I took a spin through the Buildings Chapter of AR5 and I see relatively little that talks about building height. There is some discussion of the role of compactness in reducing heating loads, and of roof surface area in installing photovoltaic cells.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

They'll build more schools? Where? Clearly you aren't even from around here.

In DC, schools on Ward 3 are bursting at the seams, even after a wave of significant renovations and expansions. I don’t see any school planning for future growth and certainly see requirement (like in some other jurisdictions) that developers must pay a special assessment for new school and infrastructure capacity.

Meanwhile schools in other parts of DC are virtually empty. Maybe Ward 3 people should move east and send their kids to these empty schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

They'll build more schools? Where? Clearly you aren't even from around here.

In DC, schools on Ward 3 are bursting at the seams, even after a wave of significant renovations and expansions. I don’t see any school planning for future growth and certainly see requirement (like in some other jurisdictions) that developers must pay a special assessment for new school and infrastructure capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

.

Yes. We’ve tried that, with suburban office parks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

Yes. We’ve tried that, with suburban office parks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

They'll build more schools? Where? Clearly you aren't even from around here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.

I don't want to live next door to my office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

Plenty of space on Metro these days. I don’t think traffic is a good reason not to build more housing — I don’t like traffic, either, but it’s pretty selfish to say no one else can live here because existing residents don’t want to deal with any inconvenience. And if enough new people move in, they’ll build more schools. Ostensibly my kids go to an overcrowded school, but their class sizes have all been smaller than mine were growing up in the Maryland suburbs, and I haven’t found class size to be a major problem for them anyway.

They'll build more schools? Where? Clearly you aren't even from around here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no reason the mixed-use or apartment buildings along Wisconsin Avenue near where I live (and near two different Metro stops and multiple bus lines) shouldn't be significantly taller, and thus, house significantly more people. That's nowhere near the historic core, so you're not blocking anyone's views of the Washington Monument or the Capitol, either.

How about lack of space in schools to accommodate more people? Traffic? Transportation infrastructure inadequate to handle more people? Etc. etc.

The long-term solution to traffic is to put the places people want and need to travel to near where they live.