Forty percent of coronavirus deaths happen in nursing homes. Do you really think that number wouldn't be lower if those people didn't live in such close quarters?

Density kills.

In a global pandemic, density kills.

Wow, that is shocking. Additionally, her aide Nesbitt cited density as one reason that Covid is spreading in Columbia Heights and the 16th Street Corridor yesterday. They seem to want to have it both ways. Or maybe one way? (lining pockets and paying her reelection campaign)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Why don’t you ask the mayor where in her comprehensive plan is the requirement that significant new developments pay into a school and infrastructure fund to finance increased needs and demands? This is what a number of localities in the US require. But I’ll give you a hint: you won’t find it, because the mayor won’t do anything to impact developer profits. In fact, she and the DC Office of Planning (the definition of a captive agency) propose to delete an existing, pretty modest requirement in the comp plan, that impacts of development on public schools and infrastructure be considered during the planning and zoning process.

Anonymous wrote:By all means let’s build more suburbs and exurbs on former farm lands and more highways because everyone in those sprawling subdivisions will complain about traffic. The more we build further out is the best solution to urban problems. All you drivers are the reason for pollution, run off, tree loss. Living in a city is the most environmentally sound choice you can make.
As for schools, if you want to end overcrowding you do that through boundary changes, end feeder rights and no more out of bound students.

Three responsive thoughts: As wonderful as this sounds, smaller apartments and high-end condos in the city and houses and townhouses in the outer suburbs are not simple substitutes. They are to a large extent separate markets driven by different consumers with different needs and preferences.

The “car-less” nirvana is not exactly careless. Pre-covid, studies have shown that traffic in various cities was in fact higher, despite private vehicle ownership flat or even falling. The culprit is ride sharing, newer delivery services like Door Dash and the Amazon-fueled economy and constant deliveries, all of which have added more vehicles during more hours to urban streets.

It sounds good to cite the environment, but what about the District’s environment? During this crisis, many of our city residents are more conscious than ever of nature and the unique qualities of the District: the openness and light enabled by our Height Act, our green space and tree canopy, our diversity of urban and semi-suburban neighborhoods and the fact that in many areas one can walk and run on sidewalks without literally bumping into others (so important right now). This puts into stark contrast the likely impacts of the mayor’s comprehensive plan, with its emphasis on adding significant height and density in many areas that don’t have it — on these valued qualities of life in Washington DC.

Anonymous wrote:By all means let’s build more suburbs and exurbs on former farm lands and more highways because everyone in those sprawling subdivisions will complain about traffic. The more we build further out is the best solution to urban problems. All you drivers are the reason for pollution, run off, tree loss. Living in a city is the most environmentally sound choice you can make.
As for schools, if you want to end overcrowding you do that through boundary changes, end feeder rights and no more out of bound students.

Just go ahead and submit your proposal to DCPS. I'd love to hear how you are going to solve current overcrowding (exists now) and eliminate out of bounds students in DC. We are listening.

By all means let’s build more suburbs and exurbs on former farm lands and more highways because everyone in those sprawling subdivisions will complain about traffic. The more we build further out is the best solution to urban problems. All you drivers are the reason for pollution, run off, tree loss. Living in a city is the most environmentally sound choice you can make.
As for schools, if you want to end overcrowding you do that through boundary changes, end feeder rights and no more out of bound students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three-quarters of the US population -- 250 million people -- live on three percent of US land. What could go wrong?

Ummm I don't know - why don't you tell us?

Your attempt at being clever is absurd though - even in populous states like NY and TX most of the population lives on a small percentage of the land and there are many large states with tiny populations so your stat really doesn't say much of anything.

In any case I'll check back in a couple of weeks when Covid-19 is tearing through rural parts of the US and see if the knucklehead or two on this thread who think they've stumbled on a clever argument against density are still here making the same dumb arguments.

“Density is really an enemy in a situation like this,” said Dr. Steven Goodman, an epidemiologist at Stanford University. “With large population centers, where people are interacting with more people all the time, that’s where it’s going to spread the fastest.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/corona...dule=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepag

In any case I'll check back in a couple of weeks when Covid-19 is tearing through rural parts of the US and see if the knucklehead or two on this thread who think they've stumbled on a clever argument against density are still here making the same dumb arguments.

Why do the Density Bros keep falling back on this old argument? COVID is going to impact the entire country, the entire planet. How does that change the fact that the hardest hit were/are the densely populated areas. Heck you can even illustrate how the exodus from the dense areas spread the disease in the US. Look at Teton. The disease did not spontaneously present itself there. The virus was imported from NYC and Los Angeles. The Density Bros have been offering it up as a collapsing rural medical system that will serve as a bellwether to the country. If anything, it is showing us that with enough space, the rate of transmission can at least be slowed down to a manageable pace. Has it stopped COVID, absolutely not. But the 'collapsing' medical infrastructure is weathering the storm.

low density is way more comfortable and low-stress for hunkering down.

Anonymous wrote:Three-quarters of the US population -- 250 million people -- live on three percent of US land. What could go wrong?

Ummm I don't know - why don't you tell us?

Your attempt at being clever is absurd though - even in populous states like NY and TX most of the population lives on a small percentage of the land and there are many large states with tiny populations so your stat really doesn't say much of anything.

In any case I'll check back in a couple of weeks when Covid-19 is tearing through rural parts of the US and see if the knucklehead or two on this thread who think they've stumbled on a clever argument against density are still here making the same dumb arguments.

Three-quarters of the US population -- 250 million people -- live on three percent of US land. What could go wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.

I am accepting it -- my kids go to one of these "bursting" schools. We all have to make some sacrifices. Having larger class sizes so that more people are able to send their kids to excellent schools or live in a family-friendly neighborhood seems like a relatively minor one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

This illustrates another problem that the urbanism crowd fails to address: Even with changes to the CP, you need to actually find the land to build upon, which isn't easy in DC. Doing so in a piecemeal manner -- adding one or two four-unit buildings here and there, as is the case now -- will not get the city anywhere close to Bowser's housing goals, and large-scale on already-developed commercial property is a massively expensive proposition for developers, who only would be able to make a profit by building luxury apartments, which would do little to solve the city's housing crunch.

To get the to the scale Bowser is proposing, eminent domain has to be brought into play, and that would be political suicide.

So if you can't get it all done in one fell swoop, no point trying to move toward the goal at all? That seems sort of silly.

Where does it say that?

The point is that is the CP changes are not the magic panacea GGW and the like make it out to be -- that all of DC's ills will be cured once those evil Ward 3 residents are taught a lesson, which has become David Alpert's mantra -- and that Bowser's plan is far easier said than actually done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of room for policies in between "let's make parts of D.C. denser than they are now to improve long-term sustainability and boost housing affordability" and "let's make all of D.C. as dense as New York City." This is a straw man argument at heart (so naturally, it's gone on for 42 pages and counting...).

Parts of DC are already more densely populated than parts of NYC.

And those are not the parts that are likely being targeted for increased density.

So why should Great neighborhoods like Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park and AU Park be “targeted” for increased density ?!

I live in AU Park and think we could easily accommodate significantly more density without losing any of the characteristics that make the neighborhood great, let alone without worrying about safety. If every block had one or two 4-unit apartment buildings where there's now a single-family house, my life wouldn't change a bit, but a lot more people would be able to afford to live here.

The schools are bursting at the seams. Ridiculously irresponsible in a time of public health crisis brought on by density to advocate for this.

The public health crisis is not "brought on by density," it's brought on by a virus.

The schools are not "bursting at the seams." My kids' classes would be fine with another three or four kids in each one. Maybe it wouldn't be the 100 percent perfect ideal situation, but so what? Why am I entitled to 100 percent perfect if that means other people can't move here?

Deal and Wilson both were at 108 percent capacity two years ago and have only gotten worse. Janney was at 105 percent capacity. Stoddert was at 137 percent capacity. Lafayette at 101 percent capacity.

https://thedcline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Wilson-Feeder-Pattern-Community-Working-Group-Summary-Report_February-2019_Final.pdf

That's the very definition of bursting at the seams. It's also incredibly unsafe, but since you're fine with it we should just accept it. Got it.