Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of upper NW suburbanites lamenting about "our city."

In Cleveland Park we call our neighborhood “the village in the city.” And we want to keep that green, walkable community character.

And yet, your neighborhood literally has a useless parking lot on top of a metro station for no good reason other than, because.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to bring housing costs down is to build more densely. That means building higher.

Shrug. It’s the only option. We have to build higher.

That's not the only option. DC is far from a situation where the only way to increase density is to go higher.

No thank you.

Then you have to change the zoning for the large swatches of single family areas. It is one or the other, or both.

Anonymous wrote:I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.

How do people not get this?

Developers aren't even building buildings at the current height limit in Cleveland Park, why in the world would anyone think that all of a sudden a slew of high rises will pop up just because the law changes? Every new apartment in the high rises downtown means less demand for housing in Cleveland Park. (or wherever the NIMBYs have their panties in a bunch about.)

Anonymous wrote:I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.
- Increased density downtown will also help to make most of the area more useful to residents for something other than workplaces.
Downtown would easily support better shopping, better restaurants, etc if the height limit hadn't bid up rents so much.
- Increased density downtown would reduce the number of firms locating in far flung suburbs that leads to truly terrible commutes for two-income households.
- Increased density downtown would increase the tax base that can be used to pay for social services and affordable housing for poorer residents.

I get that people want to maintain the character of the city, but there are lots of ways that loosening the height limit can be done to maintain that. For example, buildings over the old limit could require additional design review. Or, we could make FARs tradable, so that a building that wants to go higher can only do so by purchasing the rights from a nearby building that then won't go as high. Take a look at Boston (I think a better analogue than NY by far). New tall buildings there are still contentious at times, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the charm of Beacon Hill or the Back Bay has been destroyed by the tall buildings nearby. Instead, the buildings help make those places more vibrant.

On a related note, folks have noted the NY Ave. corridor as a place that has lots of surplus capacity for building. Fair, but most of NY Ave also has little to no transit access. Until that's fixed, there's no way that space can be fully developed. That's true of the majority of useable spaces in the city at this point.

I like this, especially the bolded points and suggestions.

I support raising the height limit responsibly, but it feels like there's seriously no creativity or foresight

- Increasing the height limit _reduces_ pressure on neighborhoods outside the core like Cleveland Park (to take the prior example), it doesn't increase it. That's because taller buildings can substitute for the ever-expanding sea of 12 story boxes downtown that we currently have, and that threatens to engulf nearby neighborhoods. And, we still have all the zoning tools to ensure that historic structures remain.
- Increased density downtown will also help to make most of the area more useful to residents for something other than workplaces.
Downtown would easily support better shopping, better restaurants, etc if the height limit hadn't bid up rents so much.
- Increased density downtown would reduce the number of firms locating in far flung suburbs that leads to truly terrible commutes for two-income households.
- Increased density downtown would increase the tax base that can be used to pay for social services and affordable housing for poorer residents.

I get that people want to maintain the character of the city, but there are lots of ways that loosening the height limit can be done to maintain that. For example, buildings over the old limit could require additional design review. Or, we could make FARs tradable, so that a building that wants to go higher can only do so by purchasing the rights from a nearby building that then won't go as high. Take a look at Boston (I think a better analogue than NY by far). New tall buildings there are still contentious at times, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the charm of Beacon Hill or the Back Bay has been destroyed by the tall buildings nearby. Instead, the buildings help make those places more vibrant.

On a related note, folks have noted the NY Ave. corridor as a place that has lots of surplus capacity for building. Fair, but most of NY Ave also has little to no transit access. Until that's fixed, there's no way that space can be fully developed. That's true of the majority of useable spaces in the city at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

What is happening is that Bowser’s policies are encouraging less affordable housing rather than more. Case in point is an older modest apartment building on Connecticut Avenue in Ward three. For the last couple of years, the developer owner has slowly been emptying out the rent control units. Now only a few tenants remain. The developer is using some zoning code tricks to get permission to construct a couple of added floors, resulting in a few more units overall in the building. The result will be an all-luxury building, with just two “inclusive zoning” units. Inclusive zoning units are at a higher income Level than rent controlled units. So an entire building of transit-oriented, rent controlled units will be lost in exchange for only two IZ units.

Moreover, hundreds of public housing units in DC are boarded up. What is Bowser’s plan to reconstruct such public housing?

Something else funny that she did … that strikes me as very funny! The recent Post article about the Ct. Avenue building where rent controlled apartments were offered to folks with vouchers at higher than market rents. These folks now comprise the majority of the building. There have been problems with the behaviors of some of them such as defecation in the hallways. The voucher recipients themselves are complaining about the bad apples and lack of city oversight. OK--
But APART from that... the city has commandeered already rent controlled apartments, for voucher recipient at above market prices? So--where affordable housing PREVIOUSLY existed for someone (elderly? student? middle class?) the city is not paying above market. So they have effectively lessened, not increased, affordable housing for all. See the problem?

It’s even sleazier than that. You were referring to another building on Connecticut Ave., Sedgwick Gardens which the Washington Post wrote about a couple weeks ago. When the owner rents a rent controlled unit through the voucher program it effectively and forever removes that unit from the rent control stock. So Bowser can boast that her voucher program is enabling formerly homeless people to live in a once nice building in Ward Three. But thanks to the crime spree and other incidents in the building caused by some of the new voucher tenants or their guests, long time residents on fixed income in the rent controlled units are being intimidated and driven out. So between the voucher program directly removing units from rent control and other residents leaving effectively under duress, the result is that in a year or two the owners will have a complexity non-rent controlled building which they can re-develop and market as high-end housing. Bowser gets a political win in the short term and her crony developer friends get a nice revenue bump from the vouchers up front but then a big financial windfall long-term. Meanwhile a significant stock of rent controlled housing in Ward three near the metro is lost.

Thank you for explaining. That was not flagged in the article at all - but all I could think is "WHY" would the city seek to pay with vouchers (above market rated) for rent controlled apartments that are ALREADY providing affordable housing. Putting your and my train of thought together, by so doing her administration has effectively lessened the total stock of affordable housing in the city.
Will the Council pass a rule that vouchers may NOT be used for already rent control units/or that they must remain rent controlled if the voucher tenant leaves?
And why would we trust this Mayor with managing ANYTHING else to do with affordable housing, including her attempt to raise building limits?

This is a scandal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

What is happening is that Bowser’s policies are encouraging less affordable housing rather than more. Case in point is an older modest apartment building on Connecticut Avenue in Ward three. For the last couple of years, the developer owner has slowly been emptying out the rent control units. Now only a few tenants remain. The developer is using some zoning code tricks to get permission to construct a couple of added floors, resulting in a few more units overall in the building. The result will be an all-luxury building, with just two “inclusive zoning” units. Inclusive zoning units are at a higher income Level than rent controlled units. So an entire building of transit-oriented, rent controlled units will be lost in exchange for only two IZ units.

Moreover, hundreds of public housing units in DC are boarded up. What is Bowser’s plan to reconstruct such public housing?

Something else funny that she did … that strikes me as very funny! The recent Post article about the Ct. Avenue building where rent controlled apartments were offered to folks with vouchers at higher than market rents. These folks now comprise the majority of the building. There have been problems with the behaviors of some of them such as defecation in the hallways. The voucher recipients themselves are complaining about the bad apples and lack of city oversight. OK--
But APART from that... the city has commandeered already rent controlled apartments, for voucher recipient at above market prices? So--where affordable housing PREVIOUSLY existed for someone (elderly? student? middle class?) the city is not paying above market. So they have effectively lessened, not increased, affordable housing for all. See the problem?

It’s even sleazier than that. You were referring to another building on Connecticut Ave., Sedgwick Gardens which the Washington Post wrote about a couple weeks ago. When the owner rents a rent controlled unit through the voucher program it effectively and forever removes that unit from the rent control stock. So Bowser can boast that her voucher program is enabling formerly homeless people to live in a once nice building in Ward Three. But thanks to the crime spree and other incidents in the building caused by some of the new voucher tenants or their guests, long time residents on fixed income in the rent controlled units are being intimidated and driven out. So between the voucher program directly removing units from rent control and other residents leaving effectively under duress, the result is that in a year or two the owners will have a complexity non-rent controlled building which they can re-develop and market as high-end housing. Bowser gets a political win in the short term and her crony developer friends get a nice revenue bump from the vouchers up front but then a big financial windfall long-term. Meanwhile a significant stock of rent controlled housing in Ward three near the metro is lost.

sorry, "is now paying"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

What is happening is that Bowser’s policies are encouraging less affordable housing rather than more. Case in point is an older modest apartment building on Connecticut Avenue in Ward three. For the last couple of years, the developer owner has slowly been emptying out the rent control units. Now only a few tenants remain. The developer is using some zoning code tricks to get permission to construct a couple of added floors, resulting in a few more units overall in the building. The result will be an all-luxury building, with just two “inclusive zoning” units. Inclusive zoning units are at a higher income Level than rent controlled units. So an entire building of transit-oriented, rent controlled units will be lost in exchange for only two IZ units.

Moreover, hundreds of public housing units in DC are boarded up. What is Bowser’s plan to reconstruct such public housing?

Something else funny that she did … that strikes me as very funny! The recent Post article about the Ct. Avenue building where rent controlled apartments were offered to folks with vouchers at higher than market rents. These folks now comprise the majority of the building. There have been problems with the behaviors of some of them such as defecation in the hallways. The voucher recipients themselves are complaining about the bad apples and lack of city oversight. OK--
But APART from that... the city has commandeered already rent controlled apartments, for voucher recipient at above market prices? So--where affordable housing PREVIOUSLY existed for someone (elderly? student? middle class?) the city is not paying above market. So they have effectively lessened, not increased, affordable housing for all. See the problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, not gonna get me to agree with you OP. DC needs affordable housing near transit, and building up is the way to do it. I don't think all of DC should be turned into downtown Bethesda, but I like the way neighborhoods like Navy Yard are developing with dense buildings and lots of amenities. What I WOULD like to see is more aesthetically pleasing large developments - why are the new builds all so pastichey and ugly these days?

Do you think once they pass this, you'll get input in aesthetics? No you wont. They'll be pastichey (whatever that means) and ugly and permanent.

That's a great point for people who care about aesthetics (or their opinion of it) more than having enough housing for people of all income levels throughout the city and where it's needed. So, you do you.

What is happening is that Bowser’s policies are encouraging less affordable housing rather than more. Case in point is an older modest apartment building on Connecticut Avenue in Ward three. For the last couple of years, the developer owner has slowly been emptying out the rent control units. Now only a few tenants remain. The developer is using some zoning code tricks to get permission to construct a couple of added floors, resulting in a few more units overall in the building. The result will be an all-luxury building, with just two “inclusive zoning” units. Inclusive zoning units are at a higher income Level than rent controlled units. So an entire building of transit-oriented, rent controlled units will be lost in exchange for only two IZ units.

Moreover, hundreds of public housing units in DC are boarded up. What is Bowser’s plan to reconstruct such public housing?

Anonymous wrote:Positano appears to be a holiday resort.


Rome, the capital of Italy, does have high rises.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8201726,12.4576625,3a,75y,163.66h,88.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw-5CTjJAs-1eOBL9POts3w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw-5CTjJAs-1eOBL9POts3w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D102.24291%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Most of the city is quite dense, though with mid rises. Of course there are hardly any single family houses.

On the very outskirts in the fascist neighborhood of EUR has some low slung apartment buildings similar to DC. There is certainly no high rise skyline of time prooer????

Positano appears to be a holiday resort.


Rome, the capital of Italy, does have high rises.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8201726,12.4576625,3a,75y,163.66h,88.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw-5CTjJAs-1eOBL9POts3w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw-5CTjJAs-1eOBL9POts3w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D102.24291%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Most of the city is quite dense, though with mid rises. Of course there are hardly any single family houses.

Anonymous wrote:I would love to live on the seafront of Positano! They should knock down all the white washed single family houses and build high rises for me! It will be much more environmentally friendly and just better!!

If there are historical houses in DC that are worth preserving, they should be preserved.

But if we are going to tear down a 2 story garden apt complex to build a 15 story building, why is it bad to build a 20 story building instead?

Also are you commuting to Positano regularly?

Wow, so many people convinced the sky is falling without stopping to think about how it would actually work out in the real world:

1. DC isn't going to become New York overnight without the height limit, we simply don't have to demand or population to fill that many high rises. The tall buildings would go downtown and maybe a few dotted around popular Metro stations. Anyone complaining about "buildings blocking out the light" has absolutely nothing to worry about unless they currently live within the central downtown area.

2. Anyone worried about property values falling also has absolutely nothing to worry about. This is Bowser we're talking about. Anything she supports has already been workshopped with and approved by a dozen developers and if it was going to lower their property values they would have nixed it long ago.

I would love to live on the seafront of Positano! They should knock down all the white washed single family houses and build high rises for me! It will be much more environmentally friendly and just better!!