Brunch links: everyone else already linked to it edition

Public Spaces

Brunch links: everyone else already linked to it edition

by David Alpert • June 22, 2008 10:23 am

Via City Paper.

Notyetworth or Lawn and Order? City Paper has a feature on DC's neighborhoods, with cutesy names like "Sacramento" for CUA/Brookland or "Banana Republic Republic" for Georgetown. The accompanying essays for each neighborhood are much less superficial than I expected. The one for Subarubia (Tenleytown/AU Heights) gives a lot of ink to the smart growth debate on Wisconsin Avenue and to Ward 3 Vision.

Missing the forest: Some environmental groups are new to the idea that relatively dense, walkable and transit-oriented development is an important way to save the planet, by reducing development pressure on the countryside and reducing driving. Others are still a little unclear on the concept, like those planning to sue to block development at Poplar Point (which will still contain a large park). And Now, Anacostia defends the development on behalf of the neighbors, and Ryan Avent on behalf of smart policy.

13 comments — Share	— tags: DC, environment, links, Poplar Point, Smart Growth

With Safeway and library, Tenleytown takes two steps forward and one step back (Sep 25, 2009)
Walk Score launches maps for DC and others (Jul 17, 2008)
"Save our sprawl" in Brookland (May 12, 2008)
NIMBYism strong on Upper Wisconsin (Feb 22, 2008)
Ward 3 Vision (Dec 19, 2007)

Comments

Environmental groups are new to the idea that relatively dense, walkable and transit-oriented development is an important way to save the planet, by reducing development pressure on the countryside--

Patronizing (& as an environmentalist, I'll say...INCORRECT) tone aside, do you really think people "from the countryside" will really be able to afford some place in Poplar Point? Are you kidding me with this stuff?

by June on Jun 22, 2008 11:44 am

June: I recommend checking out the Housing & Transportation Affordability Index from the Center for Neighborhood Technology. It shows how, while housing prices decline as you get farther out ("drive till you qualify"), when we factor in transportation costs, far-out suburban areas become as expensive as urban neighborhoods.

Poplar Point will also have affordable housing, but even aside from that, the more walkable and transit-oriented neighborhoods we build, the more people we can accommodate in low-energy-usage lifestyles reducing population pressure elsewhere and making it politically easier to protect wilderness areas.

by David Alpert on Jun 22, 2008 12:04 pm

Cute, but it was funnier when the New Yorker did it 7 years ago:

http://www.mairakalman.com/newyorker/newyorker-8nyorkistan.html

by Chris Loos on Jun 22, 2008 12:07 pm

The incorrect part I was referring to was your incredible assertion that environmentalists are new to the idea of cities being ways to save the environment.

by June on Jun 22, 2008 12:08 pm

Wasn't there actually a poster of new yorkistan, that's like, years old? Or am I thinking of something else?

by June on Jun 22, 2008 12:09 pm

June: Fair enough, I changed it to say "some". Because many environmental groups really are just coming around to this idea now.

by David Alpert on Jun 22, 2008 12:14 pm

I'm sorry, I don't know which environmental groups you are referring to when you say they have not favored cities or dense living. Hasn't the idea of the carbon footprint been around forever? And isn't one's CFP lower in cities? Haven't environmental groups, like, ALWAYS been high on mass transit? Maybe you will have to cite actual groups, because I just don't know what you are talking about.

by June on Jun 22, 2008 5:15 pm

I think this is a good debate to have. The Anacostia is absolutely in bad shape. Developing right up to the edge of it doesn't help. But developing land near a metro station is smart for the environment. How do you balance these competing principles? I'd say I'm all for a development, just not too much. Or I'd give up some of the green space at Poplar Point for half the land under RFK parking lots.

Both sides have a point, and I'm not enough of an economist to decide which has the greater utility.

by VC on Jun 22, 2008 6:36 pm

Most office workers based in DC are quite familiar with commuters who come from Frederick to Fredericksburg. Having worked in DC for 20 years, I tend to think that not many of these people would ever consider relocating to Washington. I do not see that happening. They were born in those far off places, and they were brought up there. I do not think what they do (long commutes) makes much sense (not to mention the questionable business practice of having a whole lot of workers there at 7 a.m and out by 2 or 3 pm), but neither does it really make sense to say hey, yall, come on in and buy this $450,000 one bedroom condo in Poplar Point. I'm sorry, but I doubt these days they'd even qualify ahead others. I mean, they make it (transportation) work out one way or another. For $250,000, they have a whole lot more room and a yard. Many of them take vans in, anyway.

by June on Jun 22, 2008 7:07 pm

Except that the point is not that people from Frederick live in Poplar Point. It's that people in Bethesda live in Poplar Point, and people in Rockville live in Bethesda, and people in Clarksburg live in Rockville and people in Frederick live in Clarksburg (or whatever the chain is). This is basic economics really. If you have more units in DC, more people will live in them. That means less people live elsewhere.

by VC on Jun 22, 2008 7:20 pm

Agreed that it's not about getting people from Frederick to live in DC. It's about creating the extra units to supply people who already live in DC, like me, who would otherwise feel they had to move out to NoVa, pushing someone else even farther out. Every $450,000 one bedroom condo in Poplar Point is that much less pressure on the price of similar $450,000 condos in the rest of the city.

by Dan on Jun 23, 2008 7:56 am

Every $450,000 one bedroom condo in Poplar Point is that much less pressure on the price of similar $450,000 condos in the rest of the city.

What?

by IM on Jun 23, 2008 8:13 am

Supply and demand. I demand a condo somewhere in the city. Increasing the supply reduces the pressure my demand puts on prices. Hence, I can afford to stay in the city, which means I don't move to Arlington, which lowers the demand there. And so forth.

The end result is not that someone from Frederick moves to DC, but maybe that someone from Frederick can afford the same lifestyle a little closer.

by Dan on Jun 23, 2008 12:53 pm