Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
See Also1810 E VENANGO STREET #305, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19134 | MLS# PAPH2356008306 W COURTLAND STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19140 | MLS# PAPH236099010 Top Taxpaying Properties in Philadelphia - CommercialCafe1810 E VENANGO STREET #206, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19134 | MLS# PAPH2356002Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".
Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. And if it doesn't matter if your house is in a zone that's being targeted, because once they start down this path, they will not stop.
Well, that’s silly. It certainly matters to ME whether my house is in a zone that’s being targeted. Just as I am less concerned about school redistricting that doesn’t affect my street or neighborhood. Otherwise everyone would be up in arms about everything.
OK, whatever. There's a map on page 5 of the powerpoint. If you're south of Rockville, you will be affected. As it turns out, the poor people who purportedly need this "attainable" housing wouldn't deign to live in the northern part of the county.
What are you talking about? There are plenty of poor people who live in the northern part of the county.
Yes, lots of poor people figure their lives out and make things work. Others whine about affordable housing and think they're entitled to live in Bethesda; the planning board seems eager to help them!
One poster was complaining about there being too many cars. Putting people upcounty will definitely get you too many cars. In density not so much.
The estimated travel times and cost of public transport are not going to get folks in these to-be-developed zones point to point, broadly -- to work, to shop (without great encumbrance, to boot), etc., where that would present a good alternative to driving. The added density of this type simply will bring more cars to the local area.
Take a look at how bad traffic is with the current metro closures. That's one way to see the benefit of there being a transit alternative.
Non sequitor, if you are suggesting that is a justification for more density. That marginal benefit is needed with the current density. One of the biggest problems with the currently pursued higher-density infill approach is a terrible lack of requiring the infrastructure needed to serve the impacted communities properly. From a transportation perspective, BRT isn't going to cut it, especially given the point-to-point needs.
Yes, this is absolutely correct. Increasing density will (almost) always in traffic, because new residents still use cars. Unless the new residents are banned from having and using cars traffic congestion is going to increase.
I am strongly in favor of the increase density and I agree with you....at least in the short run.
But, two things-
1. Over time and with increased/enhanced mass transit options and walkable community-serving services, people will use cars less frequently. This is a long game, but you have to create the conditions where people need to drive less before people can actually start driving less.
2. Increased traffic isn't bad, or at least not bad enough to outweigh the other benefits of walkability/density. The slower a driver goes, and the more attention they need to pay while driving, the less fatalities.1. So create the conditions first, then increase density, if it must be so. Or plan for that in greenfield areas rather than existing suburban developments.
2. Instead, invest in pedestrian improvements -- better sidewalks & crossings, more crossings with discouragement of jaywalking otherwise, etc. "Increased traffic isn't bad" is a pretty poor lead statement, even if followed by the tradeoff caveat.
The long game as being suggested really sticks it to the current residents of those areas. They made among the most significant and burdensome-to-change life choices when deciding to reside there. When planners don't require the necessary infrastructure to support infill that happens with zoning change, those residents have to deal not only with undesired changes to neighborhood character but also with waiting out that result. A result that is aspirational, rather than determined, and the benefits of which might not come to pass at all. And even if those benefits materialize a decase or two later, the overall result, with the increased density, larger buildings, etc., may well not be as good for them as would be the case if zoning remained unchanged.
PP here. Two thoughts:
1. All pedestrian improvements are in the end a way to make traffic move slower and make drivers pay more attention. More cars on the road does this.
2. I agree that current residents pay a price with increased density. But there are two sides to that equation. It is a strong benefit to newer residents that come in. The question is whether that matters. I think it does.
Logically fallacious arguments, there.
1. All gutter maintenance is to ensure that leaves do not block water from reaching downspouts so that the structure of the house is protected. Cutting down all trees does this.
2. False choice. You pose this as though anyone must either accept the current initiative or completely ignore any benefit to new residents. A few things:
A. You're presuming there is no approach that keeps current residents from paying a price. It would be a different approach, such as encouraging greenfield job centers farther out with new lower/middle cost housing, or relying on the buildout in areas with existing underutilized high-density zoning, like much of downtown Silver Spring, or infrastructure first/deterministically tied to increased densities, or compensation to those negatively affected (which almost never happens, but would tend to be a self-correcting mechanism for these kinds of public policies if regularly employed).
B. You're presuming that the proper focus of elected representatives and their appointees is anyone who might live in their jurisdiction, when their chief focus should be on the electorate who placed the responsibility in their hands.
C. You're ignoring the sequential trampling of the rights of minorities (in this case the smaller populations of residents more directly impacted with each program/corridor/etc. vs. the population of the entire county). If you really want to play the Robin Hood card, the proposals should be about BRT along MacArthur Blvd and River Rd to Potomac, with quadplexes/small apartment buildings there and a separate bus-only crossing to get those folks to Tyson's if you can't make a nearer job center (/sarcasm). It just shows that this is all about making low-hanging fruit to fill developers pocket.
