Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they are better ranges and because induction requires new pans and a heavy up.

Induction stoves should not require a heavy up unless your box is completely maxed out on breakers - the stoves themselves use very little electricity.

We've added an induction stove, a heat pump and an EV charger to our 25 year old box in the last 4 years with zero issues and we still have 4 available breaker slots for converting our hot water heater and 2nd furnace to electric.

We installed our induction stove in October and about two-thirds of our pots and pans work with the new stove - the only stuff that didn't work were the non-stick pans but we were planning to get rid of those anyhow because the PFAs flake off and can get into your food. Stainless steel cookware works just fine with an induction stove.

And gas stoves are not better ranges at all - the induction stove cooks stuff much faster and FWIW is way easier to clean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to get those bus garages in FH. It's gonna be awesome!!

Vibrant urban bus garages.

Maybe they’ll claim they’ll have affordable housing on top.

The plan calls for them to put a park and/or a soccer field on the roof, which I'm all for, it's about 1 1/2 blocks from my house and would be great to have a field there.

What’s planned at the Lord & Taylor site? There’s a land marking application pending there which is likely to be approved. If so, it will still be possible to redevelop the site but not to raze the building.

The bus garage is planned at that site, and I hope the landmark application fails.

I also hope it fails. The L&T building is butt ugly.

I like it. You could easily incorporate it into something.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they are better ranges and because induction requires new pans and a heavy up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turning the Lord and Taylor into a WMATA bus garage is nuts. Makes me question the credibility of the entire plan.

I know, I was hoping for retail. Maybe a Nordstrom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turning the Lord and Taylor into a WMATA bus garage is nuts. Makes me question the credibility of the entire plan.

I know, I was hoping for retail. Maybe a Nordstrom.

Anonymous wrote:Turning the Lord and Taylor into a WMATA bus garage is nuts. Makes me question the credibility of the entire plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to get those bus garages in FH. It's gonna be awesome!!

Vibrant urban bus garages.

Maybe they’ll claim they’ll have affordable housing on top.

The plan calls for them to put a park and/or a soccer field on the roof, which I'm all for, it's about 1 1/2 blocks from my house and would be great to have a field there.

What’s planned at the Lord & Taylor site? There’s a land marking application pending there which is likely to be approved. If so, it will still be possible to redevelop the site but not to raze the building.

The bus garage is planned at that site, and I hope the landmark application fails.

I also hope it fails. The L&T building is butt ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to get those bus garages in FH. It's gonna be awesome!!

Vibrant urban bus garages.

Maybe they’ll claim they’ll have affordable housing on top.

The plan calls for them to put a park and/or a soccer field on the roof, which I'm all for, it's about 1 1/2 blocks from my house and would be great to have a field there.

What’s planned at the Lord & Taylor site? There’s a land marking application pending there which is likely to be approved. If so, it will still be possible to redevelop the site but not to raze the building.

The bus garage is planned at that site, and I hope the landmark application fails.

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?

I am extremely familiar with the Connecticut Ave and the surrounding blocks. I'll give you an honest answer -- no, the SFH blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave will be fine, enhanced even, if some 8 story multi-family new buildings are built. Note that Conn Ave buildings do not have commerce on the first floor (for the most part) that lures drivers -- especially gig drivers picking up -- all day and night. There's a huge differential in traffic when the first floor is a Tatte vs. a 100% residents-only access space.

But commerce needs to happen, because Metro. And climate change or something. Fine. No more residential lobbies of the time that comprise 97% of Connecticut Ave large apartment buildings.

The much bigger concern is the salivating REIT / developers looking deeper into the neighborhood and being rewarded with upzoning changes to the code, allowing, say, 4-story multifamily housing with 20 units where a Colonial currently sits. That's not in the current drawings -- I KNOW -- but it's where they're headed. The obvious hints are in their projected maps included in the link on Page 1 of this thread. Much future expansion opportunity there.

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to get those bus garages in FH. It's gonna be awesome!!

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?

I am extremely familiar with the Connecticut Ave and the surrounding blocks. I'll give you an honest answer -- no, the SFH blocks east and west of Wisconsin Ave will be fine, enhanced even, if some 8 story multi-family new buildings are built. Note that Conn Ave buildings do not have commerce on the first floor (for the most part) that lures drivers -- especially gig drivers picking up -- all day and night. There's a huge differential in traffic when the first floor is a Tatte vs. a 100% residents-only access space.

But commerce needs to happen, because Metro. And climate change or something. Fine. No more residential lobbies of the time that comprise 97% of Connecticut Ave large apartment buildings.

The much bigger concern is the salivating REIT / developers looking deeper into the neighborhood and being rewarded with upzoning changes to the code, allowing, say, 4-story multifamily housing with 20 units where a Colonial currently sits. That's not in the current drawings -- I KNOW -- but it's where they're headed. The obvious hints are in their projected maps included in the link on Page 1 of this thread. Much future expansion opportunity there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to get those bus garages in FH. It's gonna be awesome!!

Vibrant urban bus garages.

Maybe they’ll claim they’ll have affordable housing on top.

The plan calls for them to put a park and/or a soccer field on the roof, which I'm all for, it's about 1 1/2 blocks from my house and would be great to have a field there.

What’s planned at the Lord & Taylor site? There’s a land marking application pending there which is likely to be approved. If so, it will still be possible to redevelop the site but not to raze the building.