Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPP, you can change your windows, but you would need to get approval from the historic desk at DCRA. There is a list of approved manufacturers on the HPO website.

-the poster who allegedly doesn't know anything about historic districts in DC

Go back and read what I wrote.

You don’t understand what a historic district is. You can’t even replace your window frames in Cleveland Park without government approval.

As I said....

That "government approval" takes 30 seconds at DCRA if you are using a common replacement like Pella or Andersen. Big whoop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPP, you can change your windows, but you would need to get approval from the historic desk at DCRA. There is a list of approved manufacturers on the HPO website.

-the poster who allegedly doesn't know anything about historic districts in DC

Go back and read what I wrote.

You don’t understand what a historic district is. You can’t even replace your window frames in Cleveland Park without government approval.

As I said....

Anonymous wrote:PPP, you can change your windows, but you would need to get approval from the historic desk at DCRA. There is a list of approved manufacturers on the HPO website.

-the poster who allegedly doesn't know anything about historic districts in DC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?

It depends on the context around the Metro station. Certainly it makes sense to have density around many downtown Washington Metro stations and for that matter downtown Bethesda, Rosslyn, etc. They are regional centers. Lesser but still substantial density is appropriate around Friendship Heights because it is considered an area-wide commercial area. (Yet it wouldn't be appropriate to up zone a stable single family neighborhood like Chevy Chase Village which is close to Metro). Capitol Hill, Takoma Park, Cleveland Park are all historic districts with Metro stops, and it would not be appropriate to focus substantially density in those places, as it would basically undermine much of the rationale for the historic districts.

You can add density in historic districts without undermining the integrity of the historic districts. Happens all the time across the District and around the world. Cleveland Park is not so special that it shouldn't contribute to more housing in the city.

Heck, the census data came out. Ward 6 needs to lose over 17,000 residents. Ward 3 is totally static.

You don’t understand what a historic district is. You can’t even replace your window frames in Cleveland Park without government approval. Neighbors can block you from adding on to your house.

Duplexes are not going to ever, ever, ever be approved in historic districts.

NP. I live in Cleveland Park in what realtors here call a “side by side” but where I come from would be called a duplex. A house that shares a central wall. So unless you mean something different by “duplex” my neighbors up and down my street would be surprised to know they’d never be built. But it would be awesome if I could change my windows, the 1921 ones in my house are a royal pain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?

It depends on the context around the Metro station. Certainly it makes sense to have density around many downtown Washington Metro stations and for that matter downtown Bethesda, Rosslyn, etc. They are regional centers. Lesser but still substantial density is appropriate around Friendship Heights because it is considered an area-wide commercial area. (Yet it wouldn't be appropriate to up zone a stable single family neighborhood like Chevy Chase Village which is close to Metro). Capitol Hill, Takoma Park, Cleveland Park are all historic districts with Metro stops, and it would not be appropriate to focus substantially density in those places, as it would basically undermine much of the rationale for the historic districts.

You can add density in historic districts without undermining the integrity of the historic districts. Happens all the time across the District and around the world. Cleveland Park is not so special that it shouldn't contribute to more housing in the city.

Heck, the census data came out. Ward 6 needs to lose over 17,000 residents. Ward 3 is totally static.

You don’t understand what a historic district is. You can’t even replace your window frames in Cleveland Park without government approval. Neighbors can block you from adding on to your house.

Duplexes are not going to ever, ever, ever be approved in historic districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?

It depends on the context around the Metro station. Certainly it makes sense to have density around many downtown Washington Metro stations and for that matter downtown Bethesda, Rosslyn, etc. They are regional centers. Lesser but still substantial density is appropriate around Friendship Heights because it is considered an area-wide commercial area. (Yet it wouldn't be appropriate to up zone a stable single family neighborhood like Chevy Chase Village which is close to Metro). Capitol Hill, Takoma Park, Cleveland Park are all historic districts with Metro stops, and it would not be appropriate to focus substantially density in those places, as it would basically undermine much of the rationale for the historic districts.

You can add density in historic districts without undermining the integrity of the historic districts. Happens all the time across the District and around the world. Cleveland Park is not so special that it shouldn't contribute to more housing in the city.

Heck, the census data came out. Ward 6 needs to lose over 17,000 residents. Ward 3 is totally static.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?

It depends on the context around the Metro station. Certainly it makes sense to have density around many downtown Washington Metro stations and for that matter downtown Bethesda, Rosslyn, etc. They are regional centers. Lesser but still substantial density is appropriate around Friendship Heights because it is considered an area-wide commercial area. (Yet it wouldn't be appropriate to up zone a stable single family neighborhood like Chevy Chase Village which is close to Metro). Capitol Hill, Takoma Park, Cleveland Park are all historic districts with Metro stops, and it would not be appropriate to focus substantially density in those places, as it would basically undermine much of the rationale for the historic districts.

Anonymous wrote:When is Mary Cheh going to repair the damage to Hearst Park? DC has clear cut the park slopes, is pumping thousands of galloons of ground water from the park each day into the storm sewers and work has stalled on the concrete canyon that is supposed to be a swimming pool. Cheh chose Hearst as the site for a pool, and she owns this fiasco. Fix it or get out of the way, Cheh!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?

Anonymous wrote:LOL, ok Jan. Let's spend billions of dollars on a transit system but focus housing and jobs where there are bike lanes.

Great logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or maybe she represents the DC residents who voted for her?

And maybe you should move to a suburban neighborhood, which sounds like what you are looking for.

A.lot of suburbs have density. Everytime I drive down Wisconsin' through Bethesda I'm relieved to get back to low profile, leafy Tenleytown . Maybe you should move to the suburbs?

This is exactly what DC Smart Growth, Inc. wants. The ability as a matter of right to build up low profile, leafy Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights etc. to be like downtown Bethesda.

So you think it is a good idea to not have density on top of metro stations?

There is nothing magical about metro stations in DC. They are not going to 'solve' the world for you. Multiple types of commute systems should be what we strive to develop with plentiful options for everyone, in city and suburbs.

That doesn't answer the question, but given the region has invested billions of dollars in metro, does it, or does it not, make sense to focus housing and jobs on tops of the various stations in the system?