Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Jeebus this sounds bleak. Domestic servant as the "alternative" to filling developers pockets. Just let people build more housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

Anonymous wrote:It's a mistake for the YIMBYs to talk about getting rid of single family zoning. Better to focus on adding density to major roads near metro and maybe duplexes as you transition from high density to low density. People will never accept plopping big apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods. ADUs are a better way to add density there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

How do you think those apartments were built? Because back then there was no zoning restricting them. Now they cannot be built. SFH only zoning needs to go, as do ridiculous “historical districts” and busybody ANCs weighing in on building permit applications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

There's a problem with the YIMBY stuff when they say "get rid of single family zoning" and people think that you won't be able to have single family homes in that area. It just means that the mix is allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

Anonymous wrote:Allowing apartments and small condos next to sfhs allows young families to afford to live near their parents. People wouldn't have to leave for North Carolina or Texas to start a family somewhere affordable.