Development
Brookland: save the environment somewhere else
As Brookland debates whether to build some higher-density housing next to its Metro station or preserve their "trash-strewn chain-linked blight," as one resident put it, the "I'm an environmentalist but..." arguments are back.
In a post entitled "Brookland bears the burden of saving Planet Earth! Act now or destroy civilization as we know it!" one resident wrote,
Is this really the ONLY place in DC that you can imagine would be suitable for increasing residential density? Will the planet really dry up and whither away if Brookland is allowed to grow in a way that doesn't involve mass destruction of its core area? I am a supporter of increased density and development, but this plan goes WAY further than what that would require.What if every neighborhood said the same thing and pushed for development to go somewhere else? From another:
How does green space increase auto trips? If the area north of metro is being developed, and all the other places, like AFRH, RI AVE, CUA, PAULISTS, etc. why not leave the last decent open area around metro, it is always needed for buses. ... Let all these other planned developments build up and be complete and be occupied and have no vacancy.Green space next to the Metro means we've missed an opportunity to decrease auto trips. AFRH isn't next to a Metro station, and the high cost of nice apartments and houses in the city
Comments
Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center







For example the area between New Hampshire Ave, U street & New Jersey Ave and north of N street has very little highrises and buildings over 4 stores when looking at its distance to downtown that area is where all the development should be occuring instead of mostly residental areas outside of the downtown area of the city
They should start downtown and then spread out not the other way picking areas outside of downtown by miles and expect all this to work there without problems.
Either way DC will be like a small version of the city of new york within 10 years with the same problems they have.
by kk on May 20, 2008 1:14 pm • link • report
There are tons of 'high' rises going in the area you mentioned. But the Brookland sites proximity to the metro makes it "as close" to Union station as 15th and N. The whole city is being infilled, the most desirable locations are near metro stations and are filling in fastest. Have you been to Columbia Heights? That's outside the area you mentioned, but it developed before 7th and Q because of its metro access.
btw my code words were "town wanted" EXACTLY
by Alex on May 20, 2008 6:22 pm • link • report
I see that most is occuring near metros, if you look at cities other than dc subways arent always the most important concern most of the time they are not even a consideration.
I have lived in major cities all over the world and distance to transit is not really a major concern, the major concern is usually, distance to work, shopping, grocery stores, schools etc. not distance to a train station.
In most cities major cities outside of the US people will walk, bike, take buses for medium to sometimes even long distances to things such as train, subway, monorail and tram stations because everything is usually in there neighborhood and therefore they don't usually need to leave the area that often to get anything.
by kk on May 20, 2008 11:10 pm • link • report
by Roy on May 28, 2008 1:23 pm • link • report
Add a Comment