Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

It’s looking fine, because the pandemic will be over eventually.

The mayor says the council has to pass her comprehensive plan changes to address the pandemic. Such horse shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

It’s looking fine, because the pandemic will be over eventually.

The mayor says the council has to pass her comprehensive plan changes to address the pandemic. Such horse shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

It’s looking fine, because the pandemic will be over eventually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Anonymous wrote:How’s all that dense, urban, mixed-use, transit-oriented development looking now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

You all are going to have to make up your minds about whether DC is or is not already densely populated.

If it's already densely populated, then there's no room for cars, and transit, walking, biking, and scooting need to be the priority transportation modes. In other words, the Bicycle Lobby is right: ban cars. (Yes, the Bicycle Lobby is a real organization. You can even buy a T-shirt! https://cottonbureau.com/products/the-all-powerful-bicycle-lobby#/1933563/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s )

If it isn't already densely populated, then there's room for cars, but you're going to have to ditch the argument that more density is inappropriate because DC is already densely populated.

Anonymous wrote:
The point is DC is already way more densely populated than people realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Who cares? Many Washingtonians never, ever want to be like Mew York. Long before this pandemic, we cherished our quieter neighborhoods, DC’s height limitation, the light without tall buildings shadows, being closer to nature. Now we value those qualities more than ever. I’ve never understood those who want to make DC more like New York. I mean they could move there if they really wanted. Unless, of course, a lot of Density Bros. couldn’t make it in New York...

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Density bros are the bike lobbyists. Their transportation model of bikes rather than cars can only work in dense areas

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Anonymous wrote:

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: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