Report a Comment

"No, because high density has negative externalities -- congestion, crowding, noise, pollution, loss of privacy, etc"

Loss of privacy only really impacts the adjacent land owner. With good planning involving step down heights, buffers, etc there neednt be much. Theres probably more loss of privacy to SFH's due to McMansions on teardowns than due to urbanist densification.

Perhaps bertie misread the free market question as a call to laissez faire - some here may want that, but its not necessary, nor IMO desirable in order to have market driven densification. Proper zoning to create buffers and step downs and to focus densification in areas that are already commercial or have other compatible uses, mitigation for noise, etc, adding to transpo infrastructure to help address congestion, etc, are all needed, IMO.

I have all sympathy with folks who dont want a 15 story hi rise in the middle of a neighborhood of SFHs. I have less sympathy for people who ignore that that is NOT how densification in this region, or most other regions, is taking place.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Feb 28, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam