Anonymous wrote:If you are literally talking about JUST Logan circle, then sure. If you are talking about the broader 10 square block area, there are many older apartment buildings on RI, Mass, etc that have been there for decades. Yes, there were boarded up buildings and many were not yet cut up into condos, but the sylvan, quiet neighborhood you describe does not really match the reality I remember.

Are you claiming that many tall buildings haven't been erected in the area in the last 30 years? It's completely different. It was quiet and Sylvan. I grew up there. Did you?

Mary Cheh is in the pocket of the developers who want more inventory to sell.

I live in Cleveland Park, Im a supporter of growth for DC. But people who want to get rid of the height limits and zoning are conservative pro-development destroyers of culture and architecture. They don't care about living in a humane city. They should just move out to the featureless suburbs and let the people who love this city love it as it is. Also, If they all leave, prices would get cheaper.

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park resident, house-owner with a yard, just to say my spouse and I are YIMBYs, including for our neighborhood. Including our own street. The solution to high cost of living (and homelessness) starts with building considerably more housing. Density is welcome. Mixed use is welcome. Taller buildings are welcome. A public pool is welcome. Housing built without any parking space requirements are welcome. This is a city, after all.

I decided to show up to an ANC mtg to support a mixed use proposal in the neighborhood pre-pandemic. Depressing to see the NIMBYs and their arguments. Reminded me of nothing so much as William Buckley “standing athwart history, shouting ‘Stop!’”

I am pro-growth, pro-progress. The world is changing, our city should change with it.

Well said.

And I can't wait for the pool to be open.

Thank you Mary Cheh!

Cleveland Park resident, house-owner with a yard, just to say my spouse and I are YIMBYs, including for our neighborhood. Including our own street. The solution to high cost of living (and homelessness) starts with building considerably more housing. Density is welcome. Mixed use is welcome. Taller buildings are welcome. A public pool is welcome. Housing built without any parking space requirements are welcome. This is a city, after all.

I decided to show up to an ANC mtg to support a mixed use proposal in the neighborhood pre-pandemic. Depressing to see the NIMBYs and their arguments. Reminded me of nothing so much as William Buckley “standing athwart history, shouting ‘Stop!’”

I am pro-growth, pro-progress. The world is changing, our city should change with it.

If you are literally talking about JUST Logan circle, then sure. If you are talking about the broader 10 square block area, there are many older apartment buildings on RI, Mass, etc that have been there for decades. Yes, there were boarded up buildings and many were not yet cut up into condos, but the sylvan, quiet neighborhood you describe does not really match the reality I remember.

Anonymous wrote:Did someone seriously post that Logan Circle wasn't dense twenty years ago?

That simply isn't accurate. Is there more density now? Yes, but it was one of the most densely backed neighborhoods then. Most rowhouse and apartment blocks are.

I grew up in Logan Circle..it was single family rowhouses. Most hadn't been split into multiple units. No apartment buildings on the main drags, and business district was non existent/shuttered. No, it wasn't "dense". Leafy and quiet with a bit of a prostitution problem and 14th + 16th were kind of boarded up post riot skid rows. It was nothing like current AU Park or Cleveland Park (which both have more vibrant businesses and schools in their midst), but it was similarly "dense" in a residential sense. maybe less dense. There are way more long standing apartment buildings adjacent to AU and Cleveland Park on Wisconsin and Connecticut than there ever were near Logan.

Anonymous wrote:Did someone seriously post that Logan Circle wasn't dense twenty years ago?

That simply isn't accurate. Is there more density now? Yes, but it was one of the most densely backed neighborhoods then. Most rowhouse and apartment blocks are.

The person who posted has no idea how dense Logan Circle was 20 years ago because they would not have deigned to leave Cleveland Park to set foot there 20 years ago.

Did someone seriously post that Logan Circle wasn't dense twenty years ago?

That simply isn't accurate. Is there more density now? Yes, but it was one of the most densely backed neighborhoods then. Most rowhouse and apartment blocks are.

“They are sense urban neighborhoods because of the density push of the past twenty years. I grew up in Logan Circle and it was not remotely dense. I hope they ease up on the throttle a little. Something gained can also be something lost.“

I grew up in Adam’s Morgan and now I live in Cleveland Park. Adam’s Morgan is as dense as it gets in dc. I love where I grew up, but I don’t want to turn my current street into Mintwood Place. They both have their charms

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!

People don’t support significantly more density in the historic districts.

So why are people in historic districts like Logan Circle, Shaw, Capitol Hill etc supporting and enjoying massive new density added to their neighborhoods?

Maybe replace it with "Cranky older people in Cleveland Park don't support more density in their historic district" and you might have something.

Equating Cleveland Park with Logan Circle and Shaw makes you look like a moron. Those are dense urban neighborhoods. Do you want to tear down houses to make way for apartment buildings?

They are sense urban neighborhoods because of the density push of the past twenty years. I grew up in Logan Circle and it was not remotely dense. I hope they ease up on the throttle a little. Something gained can also be something lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!

People don’t support significantly more density in the historic districts.

So why are people in historic districts like Logan Circle, Shaw, Capitol Hill etc supporting and enjoying massive new density added to their neighborhoods?

Maybe replace it with "Cranky older people in Cleveland Park don't support more density in their historic district" and you might have something.

Equating Cleveland Park with Logan Circle and Shaw makes you look like a moron. Those are dense urban neighborhoods. Do you want to tear down houses to make way for apartment buildings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!

People don’t support significantly more density in the historic districts.

So why are people in historic districts like Logan Circle, Shaw, Capitol Hill etc supporting and enjoying massive new density added to their neighborhoods?

Maybe replace it with "Cranky older people in Cleveland Park don't support more density in their historic district" and you might have something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!

People don’t support significantly more density in the historic districts.

Some people don't, but many people do. I think there are people on both ends of the spectrum: those that object to any change and those that want everything to change. Most people are somewhere in the middle: they want the benefits of greater density and also want good design. I think Mary Cheh has said as much. I'm a member of CP Smart Growth (crazy conspiracy theories notwithstanding), and even in that group most people I know see the design benefit historic protection provides even though they also see the benefits to creating more homes here, more density. Unless you are a purist, it isn't an either/or thing.

I also don't think the tone of these anti-density/urbanist posts - the personal attacks and the sweeping conspiracy theories - are doing that point of view any favors. They echo the tone seen on the CP listserv during other heated debates. I think I became more active as an urbanist in response to such vitriol. Ad hominem attacks often backfire and say more about those levying them than who they are supposed to be about. So, in a way, if you are looking for the boogeyman that has activated otherwise complacent city dwellers into urbanists, perhaps some self-reflection is in order.

Anonymous wrote:Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!

People don’t support significantly more density in the historic districts.

Most Ward 3 people I know, primarily in Cleveland and Woodley Park, would consider themselves supporters of increased density and a more sustainable transportation policy (less cars). They also want more housing choices - affordable housing for sure, but even more accessible housing. More people living in a walkable neighborhood is good thing, not a burden to be shouldered. I'm not sure if they would know to call themselves urbanists or smart growth supporters, but in the end, those are just labels. I think Mary Cheh (who I guess this odd conspiracy-laced thread was originally about?) is pretty much in line with this, which is why I expect she will win re-election handily next year. Who is running against her, and will they champion the opposite positions on these issues? Can't beat somebody with nobody!