Anonymous wrote:I googled Washington Heights population density and got 120,000 people per square mile.

So, no.

Oh, well, as long as you found some random person on the Internet to confirm what you apparently already want to believe, that's all that matters, right?

You could also look at real numbers, such as from the Furman Center at New York University, which studies population density. They say that in 2010 there was actually only one area in NYC that had more than 100,000 people per square mile (the Upper East Side). They put Washington Heights at 66,000.

See Table 1.1 here:

https://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_SOC2014_HighRes.pdf

I googled Washington Heights population density and got 120,000 people per square mile.

So, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Where are you getting this information from? I'm seeing population densities of 30-40,000 per square mile for these areas.

Of course there are parts of Manhattan that don't have population densities of 100,000 per square mile - Central Park, for example. Where else?

Most of NYC is below 100,000 per square mile -- most of Queens, Brooklyn, all of Staten Island, a few parts of Manhattan.

That propaganda network Greater Greater Washington has written about population density in DC neighborhoods.

https://ggwash.org/view/74251/density-in-housing-looks-different-depending-on-where-you-are

PP said Manhattan. Which parts of Manhattan?

washington heights
harlem
morningside heights
lower east side
soho
financial district
chelsea
columbus circle
tribeca
west village

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Navy Yard is probably denser than any of these neighborhoods. It's nothing but apartments and condos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Where are you getting this information from? I'm seeing population densities of 30-40,000 per square mile for these areas.

Of course there are parts of Manhattan that don't have population densities of 100,000 per square mile - Central Park, for example. Where else?

Most of NYC is below 100,000 per square mile -- most of Queens, Brooklyn, all of Staten Island, a few parts of Manhattan.

That propaganda network Greater Greater Washington has written about population density in DC neighborhoods.

https://ggwash.org/view/74251/density-in-housing-looks-different-depending-on-where-you-are

PP said Manhattan. Which parts of Manhattan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Where are you getting this information from? I'm seeing population densities of 30-40,000 per square mile for these areas.

Of course there are parts of Manhattan that don't have population densities of 100,000 per square mile - Central Park, for example. Where else?

Most of NYC is below 100,000 per square mile -- most of Queens, Brooklyn, all of Staten Island, a few parts of Manhattan.

That propaganda network Greater Greater Washington has written about population density in DC neighborhoods.

https://ggwash.org/view/74251/density-in-housing-looks-different-depending-on-where-you-are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

DC is already the densest state-level jurisdiction in the US.

Yes, it is the densest state-level jurisdiction that is also a city, in the US. Of course it's also the least dense state-level jurisdiction that is also a city, in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Where are you getting this information from? I'm seeing population densities of 30-40,000 per square mile for these areas.

Of course there are parts of Manhattan that don't have population densities of 100,000 per square mile - Central Park, for example. Where else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

DC is already the densest state-level jurisdiction in the US.

Law that denies RPP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other cities around the world: the pandemic has made mass transit more complicated, so we need to focus on improving other transportation options, like walking, bicycling, and scooters.

People in Cleveland Park: the pandemic has made mass transit more complicated, so we need to make it easier for people go places by car.

Density Bros. We are coming up with solutions. Not hoping that your new residents decide not to bring their cars. What is your suggestion? Pass a law that denies vehicle registration based on your street address? Your density dream is to attract these suburban workers. Why would you think that they would come without their cars, especially now that mass transit is looking a little less attractive.

What is your solution?

How about a log denies RPP permits to residence of new developments that are constructed without offstreet parking? That’s fair. Because Urbanist Density Bros (and “Density Bras”) don’t drive and instead take public transit, Lyft and scooters, they’re not negatively affected, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.

We have multiple neighborhoods with more than 80,000 people per square mile -- Columbia Heights, Mount Pleasant, etc. Logan Circle has more than 100,000 per square mile. There are many parts of Manhattan, let alone other parts of NYC, that don't have 100,000 per square mile.

Anonymous wrote:Other cities around the world: the pandemic has made mass transit more complicated, so we need to focus on improving other transportation options, like walking, bicycling, and scooters.

People in Cleveland Park: the pandemic has made mass transit more complicated, so we need to make it easier for people go places by car.

Hey, we love to walk, bike and, to use your verb, “scoot” (a word that has a different meaning BTW). Just like Seattle has done, we’d like to see more of our streets closed to thru traffic to make these activities safer. Don’t stop with the Conn. Ave. service lane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to recap:

1. We need to make the city way more densely populated (for nebulous-sounding reasons that don't actually make much sense).

2. Density has nothing to do with spreading coronavirus (despite what the entire medical profession is telling you).

3. We need to ban cars because there's too many people here and there isn't enough room for people to walk and jog and ride bikes and still maintain coronavirus social distancing.

1. There needs to be more housing because there is not enough housing.
2. That's actually not what the "entire medical profession" is saying.
3. Cars take up a lot of space that could be better used for other purposes.

I don't get this fixation with "density bros," by the way. Everyone I know who is active in DC housing/transportation/land use issues is a woman.

Don’t forget David Alpert. And the GOP operative and his AstroTurf groups.

Anonymous wrote:People on this thread always seem to ignore the fact that DC is already very densely populated. We have neighborhoods that are more densely populated than neighborhoods in Manhattan. Adding more housing to DC isn't going to accomplish much -- at some point, it's all diminishing returns. You'd be better off adding housing in places that aren't already densely populated, ie the suburbs. You'd get way more bang for the buck.

Compared to what?

Also, which neighborhoods in DC are more densely populated than which neighborhoods in Manhattan? I sincerely would like to know.