Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

Then don't live in downtown Bethesda. Nobody will be forced to live in downtown Bethesda.

As for the single family houses a few blocks from tall buildings in Bethesda, so what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

It is absolutely a bait and switch. They are just liars.

The want to Manhattanize downtown Bethesda without green space and parks which are the things that make Manhattan so livable despite the density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Because some people don’t want to live in NYC, or even Rosslyn. A lot of people think there is a meaningful difference between a city like DC or Paris where there is still some human scale vs cities with noticeably taller buildings crowding the streets. There are also single family homes a block or two away from DT Bethesda and an extra 50 or 60 feet of building throws off the transition between those areas (if not literally blocks the sun).

Maybe you don’t think there’s a meaningful difference or maybe you think the benefits of increased density are worth it but the point is that instead of having a full discussion of what Bethesda should look like we had this backwards approach where taller buildings were authorized (subject to the overall cap, creating a weird race to build as tall and as soon as possible) while people were assured overall density would stay down but now they are saying actually it doesn’t make sense to keep density down.

That’s why it feels like a bait and switch. If the planning board really thought this was the appropriate level of density they should have owned up to that 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Mathematically you're correct, but meaningfully? Nah. Not to mention that it's been over 100 years since a twenty-story building was considered a [banned-on-DCUM term for a very tall building], and why shouldn't there be blocks and blocks of them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.

People.

25%+ low income people

Perhaps you meant to say "25%+ of the units will be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units"? Residential units are not people.

Perhaps you meant to say that the people that will live in those MPDUs are low income? Dwellings are not people after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to see the county promising more parks and pedestrian improvements. But the county has built none of the promised parks from 2017 and they don’t seem to have met their goal of reducing car trips. It sure would be nice if the YIMBYs held the county to account to deliver on their promises but they never do.

They already played that game. The promised more parks. They bought the land. Then the sold the land to a developer.
https://moco360.media/2022/12/14/county-parks-department-hoping-to-sell-land-parcel-use-new-location-for-downtown-bethesda-park/

People should stop being fooled by these people. PP calls them liars and I think that’s true.

I mean, it's not like they are giving away Bethesda park land to a wealthy homeowner who bought a smaller house next door to them and wanted to convert 3400+ sf of public right-of-way for the park to their own personal ownership so they more easily could construct a pool of their liking in its place.

Oh, wait...

https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&clip_id=17690&meta_id=186971

That's not park land. What would you have wanted the county to do instead with this unused right-of-way? Widening the access to the park would have been nice, I agree.

I think most would consider undeveloped public land that provides access to the park as part of the park.

Bocce? Shuffleboard? Batting cage? Exercise stations? Bike racks?

Plenty of passible public uses and not needed for access -- the owner of the two houses is planning to demolish the smaller one next to the park in favor of a pool.

And so much for dedication to "attainable" housing, there...one less SFH in the county inventory.

What is the land value of an acte in Bethesda? Half a million? A million?

I bet the county coffers and those needing funds from it could have benefitted from a negotiated sale of the land for some tens of thousands of dollars instead of a giveaway to someone who has the financial wherewithal not only to own in Bethesda, but also purchase the neighboring single family home.

It was literally not park land. Parks didn't own it. Parks had nothing to do with it. It was county-owned right-of-way. At least now the owners are paying property taxes on it.

This is about giving away something from the common wealth of the county without public benefit or recompense to an already-wealthy individual. It doesn't matter so much that it is county-owned right-of-way next to park land or park land proper. The potential use as park land for the benefit of a larger population might just as easily have been accomplished by ceding that 3400 square feet to Montgomery Parks.

Looking at the assessments of the 2 owned properties, it would seem that the land value of the 3400 sf might be about $300k. So, instead of the County receiving $300k (or even half that, if deemed encumbered, etc.) in a sale and then collecting tax on it, the county is foregoing the sale and just collecting tax. Which might amount to a whopping $3k or so per year. If it properly re-assesses, that is...

All for the benefit of tearing down an older, smaller home in favor of expanding a larger home's back yard for the purported purpose of having a private pool of some extra dimension/extra landscaping/extra ??? (there certainly would have been enough room without the additional 3400 square feet to put in most residential pools).

The point is, though, not that the homeowner wanted to do this (sure sounds nice to me), but that the county granted it for nothing when there is the constant cry that we don't have funding adequate for requested/desired levels of many public services: police force, schools, roads, rental assistance -- you name it. The Council didn't even discuss it when it was up for a vote -- not one of them pulled it from the consent agenda. Just plain hypocritical.

The parks tie-in had to do with the mention of parks with the removal of nearby development caps and the following skepticism about the county following through on such promises.

Sure, this is a real issue. But it's not a real issue ABOUT PARKS.

You seem unable to come to grips with the following:

>> The property ceded was public land,
>> The property ceded was next to a park and was part of public right-of-way to that park,
>> The property ceded just as easily could have been ceded to Montgomery Parks and used for additional park purposes (examples provided),
>> These and other factors do make this issue, in part, about parks, and
>> Regardless, the subject of this thread is about higher development allowances in Bethesda, with a lean towards associated hypocricy that appears inherent to the county government, and only part of the thread became a bemoaning of the county's lack of follow-through on parks/park improvements promised with prior developments.
>> Such a subject and discussion makes the observation about this week's Council approval of that land giveaway apropos.

You do seem to have acknowledged that:

>> Giving such land to a private petitioner without public purpose or recompense is an example of that hypocricy.

Thank you.

all you had to do was say, "Although this property was not owned by Parks, and Park and Planning had nothing to do with any part of this decision, I believe the county's decision nonetheless relates to the use of public land in downtown Bethesda, because [reasons]."

They’ve done this several times actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.

People.

25%+ low income people

Perhaps you meant to say "25%+ of the units will be Moderately Priced Dwelling Units"? Residential units are not people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.

People.

25%+ low income people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to see the county promising more parks and pedestrian improvements. But the county has built none of the promised parks from 2017 and they don’t seem to have met their goal of reducing car trips. It sure would be nice if the YIMBYs held the county to account to deliver on their promises but they never do.

They already played that game. The promised more parks. They bought the land. Then the sold the land to a developer.
https://moco360.media/2022/12/14/county-parks-department-hoping-to-sell-land-parcel-use-new-location-for-downtown-bethesda-park/

People should stop being fooled by these people. PP calls them liars and I think that’s true.

I mean, it's not like they are giving away Bethesda park land to a wealthy homeowner who bought a smaller house next door to them and wanted to convert 3400+ sf of public right-of-way for the park to their own personal ownership so they more easily could construct a pool of their liking in its place.

Oh, wait...

https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&clip_id=17690&meta_id=186971

That's not park land. What would you have wanted the county to do instead with this unused right-of-way? Widening the access to the park would have been nice, I agree.

I think most would consider undeveloped public land that provides access to the park as part of the park.

Bocce? Shuffleboard? Batting cage? Exercise stations? Bike racks?

Plenty of passible public uses and not needed for access -- the owner of the two houses is planning to demolish the smaller one next to the park in favor of a pool.

And so much for dedication to "attainable" housing, there...one less SFH in the county inventory.

What is the land value of an acte in Bethesda? Half a million? A million?

I bet the county coffers and those needing funds from it could have benefitted from a negotiated sale of the land for some tens of thousands of dollars instead of a giveaway to someone who has the financial wherewithal not only to own in Bethesda, but also purchase the neighboring single family home.

It was literally not park land. Parks didn't own it. Parks had nothing to do with it. It was county-owned right-of-way. At least now the owners are paying property taxes on it.

This is about giving away something from the common wealth of the county without public benefit or recompense to an already-wealthy individual. It doesn't matter so much that it is county-owned right-of-way next to park land or park land proper. The potential use as park land for the benefit of a larger population might just as easily have been accomplished by ceding that 3400 square feet to Montgomery Parks.

Looking at the assessments of the 2 owned properties, it would seem that the land value of the 3400 sf might be about $300k. So, instead of the County receiving $300k (or even half that, if deemed encumbered, etc.) in a sale and then collecting tax on it, the county is foregoing the sale and just collecting tax. Which might amount to a whopping $3k or so per year. If it properly re-assesses, that is...

All for the benefit of tearing down an older, smaller home in favor of expanding a larger home's back yard for the purported purpose of having a private pool of some extra dimension/extra landscaping/extra ??? (there certainly would have been enough room without the additional 3400 square feet to put in most residential pools).

The point is, though, not that the homeowner wanted to do this (sure sounds nice to me), but that the county granted it for nothing when there is the constant cry that we don't have funding adequate for requested/desired levels of many public services: police force, schools, roads, rental assistance -- you name it. The Council didn't even discuss it when it was up for a vote -- not one of them pulled it from the consent agenda. Just plain hypocritical.

The parks tie-in had to do with the mention of parks with the removal of nearby development caps and the following skepticism about the county following through on such promises.

Sure, this is a real issue. But it's not a real issue ABOUT PARKS.

You seem unable to come to grips with the following:

>> The property ceded was public land,
>> The property ceded was next to a park and was part of public right-of-way to that park,
>> The property ceded just as easily could have been ceded to Montgomery Parks and used for additional park purposes (examples provided),
>> These and other factors do make this issue, in part, about parks, and
>> Regardless, the subject of this thread is about higher development allowances in Bethesda, with a lean towards associated hypocricy that appears inherent to the county government, and only part of the thread became a bemoaning of the county's lack of follow-through on parks/park improvements promised with prior developments.
>> Such a subject and discussion makes the observation about this week's Council approval of that land giveaway apropos.

You do seem to have acknowledged that:

>> Giving such land to a private petitioner without public purpose or recompense is an example of that hypocricy.

Thank you.

all you had to do was say, "Although this property was not owned by Parks, and Park and Planning had nothing to do with any part of this decision, I believe the county's decision nonetheless relates to the use of public land in downtown Bethesda, because [reasons]."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Well maybe you don’t live around there but when the zoning/development cap was last up for debate (2016ish??) the scale of buildings in Bethesda was definitely a hot topic. Lots of “communities not canyons” yard signs.

Of course no one is saying there shouldn’t be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda but there is a difference between 10-15 stories and 15-20 stories and there is a difference if there are a few or blocks and blocks of them.

At the time some people produced illustrations of what Wisconsin ave and downtown Bethesda would look like if those 15+ story buildings were allowed everywhere and the planning board definitely said that was completely unrealistic because of the development cap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slightly back on topic I do feel like this is a bit of a bait and switch because when people complained about the size of the buildings going up on Wisconsin (because maybe we wanted more of a human scale and less of Rosslyn 2) we were told not to worry because the development cap would prevent Wisconsin from becoming a street canyon.

Now they are like “oh we’ve maxed out the development cap already, guess we have to raise it”

You think there shouldn't be tall buildings in downtown Bethesda on top of the Metro and Purple Line stations?

They hope that politicians and the executives they appoint won't say one thing to achieve an objective and then do another or promise something for the same without coming through. The populace is easily manipulated.

Devlopers (and businesses, in general) have a much more pragmatic take, buying influence to be on the front end of such promises and positioning themselves to profit, accordingly.

I don't remember anyone promising that there wouldn't be any tall buildings in downtown Bethesda, not to mention that it would be an odd promise to make, since there already are tall buildings in downtown Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.

People.

25%+ low income people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.

People.

Anonymous wrote:3 pages in and no one has a clue who would actually live in one of these buildings.