Do you see DC becoming the next NYC? (condos, hotel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cringe at the notion and at every yuppiefied and hipster desire to fashion some kind of sanitized and affordable version of the East Village, Williamsburg or Park Slope out or the contiguous part of DC’s urban core. Weary too at the fawning over the opening of outposts of NY restaurants, trickled down foodie, fashion and social media trends and the idea that congestion and 24 hr. hustle is the desirable end state for all urban renewal everywhere (arrgh at these developers co-opting Manhattan style names for their developments—“Midtown” whatever in the middle of Reston?? Please). I like that I can affordably own and easily drive car in the city. I like that there are parts of DC totally devoid of tacky commercialism and sensory overload. I like having washer and dryer hookups. I like that real neighborhoods can reinvent themselves instead of remaining cartoon like parodies for tourist to gawk at.
Except that A. With the height limits, those buildings are both less dense than the densest parts of NYC, and differently built. and B. Most of central DC is built out, with existing rowhouses. So central DC is NEVER going to have, overall, the level of density of those buildings, even if every vacant lot, every surface parking lot, every one story commercial building, etc, etc is built to the maximum under current law. So that falls under "won't make DC like NY anyway"
And of course I think there are some very good arguements for it, in terms of providing alternatives for walkable TOD in the region, in terms of sustainability, and for DC, in terms of tax revenues. If there are negatives, by all means argue for them - but "dont be like NYC" is a silly one.
I'm sorry but I like the height limits. I hope that never changes. Being from Brooklyn you know that one can have plenty of density without going over 12 stories. You mention rowhouses but Brooklyn's brownstones are only different in name and aesthetic style only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
I am pretty sure the economics for new construction of single floor development is pretty bad.
This is the center city of a metro area of close to 6 million people, and is the seat of govt of the USA. The notion that 10 or 12 story apt buildings are an inappropriate form within a 3 or 4 miles of the center of the CBD just seems odd to me.
Huh? Who said that 10 or 12 story apt buildings were inappropriate?
I am pretty sure the economics for new construction of single floor development is pretty bad.
Do you know what you even mean when you say "the economics for new construction of single floor [?] development is pretty bad?" The "economics" of building rowhomes is not "bad." They built new rowhomes off U Street behind Ben's Chili Bowl. EYA built them in Brookland. And they even built new rowhomes to replace the existing ones around Logan Circle. So I wouldn't say the economics are "bad" because the demand is there for that type of housing. Now is it more profitable to squeeze as many units into a lot as possible? Sure. But that's not the same as the economics being bad for SFH construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
This is the center city of a metro area of close to 6 million people, and is the seat of govt of the USA. The notion that 10 or 12 story apt buildings are an inappropriate form within a 3 or 4 miles of the center of the CBD just seems odd to me.
It depends. If I live in a neighborhood that's full of rowhomes (meaning it's already fairly dense) and a developer wants to build a 600 unit condo highrise building, then it may very well be inappropriate. The goal of every city does not have to be to achieve the maximum density possible. There's a cost that comes along with greater density and not everyone wants to pay it. If you want maximum density, you should just move to Manhattan. For many people, the current density of the District is perfectly fine.
I'm sorry but I like the height limits. I hope that never changes. Being from Brooklyn you know that one can have plenty of density without going over 12 stories. You mention rowhouses but Brooklyn's brownstones are only different in name and aesthetic style only.
Huh? Who said that 10 or 12 story apt buildings were inappropriate?
"I suspect that people mean they don't want it to be as dense and as busy as NYC. The majority of the constructtion in DC is multi-floor, high density development with the aim of getting as many people into the streets as possible. That's an urban paradise for some, but for others, it's an annoyance. "
Whoever those "others" are. It seems theres some who agree with this
"If you just look at the trends like that and the ridiculous amount of high density housing,"
I was not arguing against the height limit. Or against the look of DC rowhouses. I was merely stating that both because of the height limit, and because of the existing housing housing stock, the allegedly high density housing A. Isn't really all that dense and B. Will not increase the total density all that much.
The threat of DC becoming like NYC just isn't there. Just like Living Social isn't going to make DC into Silicon Valley. DC MIGHT get enough new density to help with tax revenues, and MIGHT get a FEW additional areas that are bustling for a few hours after 5 PM (probably not 24/7 though)
DCs population in 1950 was 800,000. In 2000 it was down to 572,000. In 2010 it was back up to just over 600,000. Still 200,000 LESS than its historic peak. Yet growth back is considered a threat to some distinctively DCish lack of hustle and bustle? Did all those 800,000 folks stay inside all the time?
DCs population in 1950 was 800,000. In 2000 it was down to 572,000. In 2010 it was back up to just over 600,000. Still 200,000 LESS than its historic peak. Yet growth back is considered a threat to some distinctively DCish lack of hustle and bustle? Did all those 800,000 folks stay inside all the time?
You didn't have as many cars in 1950 nor as large a metro population either. The typical family living in DC in 1950 probably had one car (if that). The typical family living in DC today probably has at least two cars. A single rowhome + basement apartment being leased out to grad students probably has at least four cars. Traffic and parking is one of the major reservations people have about all of this new development. If you don't believe me, you should try driving down First Street, NW in the morning.
Do you know what you even mean when you say "the economics for new construction of single floor [?] development is pretty bad?" The "economics" of building rowhomes is not "bad." They built new rowhomes off U Street behind Ben's Chili Bowl. EYA built them in Brookland. And they even built new rowhomes to replace the existing ones around Logan Circle. So I wouldn't say the economics are "bad" because the demand is there for that type of housing. Now is it more profitable to squeeze as many units into a lot as possible? Sure. But that's not the same as the economics being bad for SFH construction.
that depends on whats there already. In Brookland I think EYA is building on vacant land. If its about redeveloping an area with existing low rise buildings, the economics will be different. Now maybe you think all existing low rise development in the district is fine, and there are no benefits to replacing it, if it means "multifloor" (though of course row homes are multifloor too). There we may disagree.
Quote:
It depends. If I live in a neighborhood that's full of rowhomes (meaning it's already fairly dense) and a developer wants to build a 600 unit condo highrise building, then it may very well be inappropriate. .
Proper planing and zoning would usually involved a step down building form, location of "hi rises" (IE DC 10 story buildings) along major commercial corridors, etc. Certainly there are locations where it could be inappropriate.
Quote:
The goal of every city does not have to be to achieve the maximum density possible..
Which is of course, not a possibility. We are not talking about tearing down all the SFHs in NE DC (much less all the rowhouses) to create high rises. We are talking about a limited number of lots and what should be built there.
Quote:
There's a cost that comes along with greater density and not everyone wants to pay it. If you want maximum density, you should just move to Manhattan. For many people, the current density of the District is perfectly fine.
Adding density is good for the region, for sustainability, for leveraging a transit system that was built at considerable cost with federal dollars, and for providing a mix of housing options (there will still be plenty of townhomes and SFHs) in the district. And it just might add enough tax revenue to help DC address some of its still considerable social problems.
And it will still result in a density MUCH, MUCH, MUCH lower than Manhattan. Thats just rhetoric. One might as well say that the folks who built those townhouses you love, should have moved to boston or philadelphia (or NY) back in 1890. Cities change.
Wanting a slightly denser DC is NOT the same as wanting to live in Manhattan.
You didn't have as many cars in 1950 nor as large a metro population either. The typical family living in DC in 1950 probably had one car (if that). The typical family living in DC today probably has at least two cars. A single rowhome + basement apartment being leased out to grad students probably has at least four cars. Traffic and parking is one of the major reservations people have about all of this new development. If you don't believe me, you should try driving down First Street, NW in the morning.
I don't see why a larger metro population means it makes sense for DC to be smaller.
And if people had fewer cars, I guess the sidewalks had even more hustle and bustle, eh?
If there are problems with too much car ownership, perhaps the new buildings should have fewer parking spaces, neighborhood spaces should be by permit, and there should be more non auto alternatives.
You didn't have as many cars in 1950 nor as large a metro population either. The typical family living in DC in 1950 probably had one car (if that). The typical family living in DC today probably has at least two cars. A single rowhome + basement apartment being leased out to grad students probably has at least four cars. Traffic and parking is one of the major reservations people have about all of this new development. If you don't believe me, you should try driving down First Street, NW in the morning.
And if I were to say, if you want ease of parking and driving, move to Loudoun, would that be any more reasonable than saying move to Manhattan? As you point out, DC was historically not that auto dependent - why is that change taken for granted, but density is an offense against the status quo?
And if people had fewer cars, I guess the sidewalks had even more hustle and bustle, eh?
I don't think people mind pedestrian traffic (which was probably never that much anyway) as much as they do vehicular traffic. People want to be able to come home and park fairly close to their home. They don't want to have to battle for parking like it's Adams-Morgan on a Friday night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
If there are problems with too much car ownership, perhaps the new buildings should have fewer parking spaces, neighborhood spaces should be by permit, and there should be more non auto alternatives.
There are actually a number of non-auto alternatives in my neighborhood. That's the irony; gentrifiers want public transit (which we have) but yet they still bring their Priuses and Mini Coopers. The problem comes in when you try to build cities for a suburban clientele. People want parking in buildings, and as long as that continues, the District will have more traffic problems. Anyone have any idea how many building have been built in DC without parking in the last five years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
