BrightThru2014

BrightThru2014 t1_j1rgdk2 wrote

This is 100% false. The cost of having a nice facade is marginal compared to the cost of the land, the foundation, interior of the building, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.

For example: https://www.dmsas.com/project/the-waycroft/

Or this: https://www.bozzuto.com/development/development-portfolio/chevy-chase-lake-phase-i/

Why not more of that?

1

BrightThru2014 t1_j1rfesu wrote

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again — exterior facade costs are absolutely marginal compared to the cost of the land, the foundation, internal construction, electrical wiring, plumbing etc. It’s a rounding error. You do not dissuade construction by having standards for these things, any more than having other mundane building code requirements like sidewalk encroachments.

In fact such constructions DO happen and are priced comparably to the luxury apartment developments you find in Navy Yard or boutique developments in places like H Street.

For example: https://www.bozzuto.com/development/development-portfolio/chevy-chase-lake-phase-i/

2

BrightThru2014 t1_j1rdhvo wrote

It’s not at great expense!!! You really have no idea what you’re talking about — after taking into account the cost of the land itself plus the foundation, all of the interior of the building, etc embellishments on the exterior are a marginal cost. Nobody is supporting NIMBYism, but why should we accept new housing that looks like the same cookie cutter blocky condos that are going up in every new development from Boise to Raleigh to Phoenix, when we could build buildings that look like DC and are almost universally preferred by anyone that’s not a developer.

Do you agree that all else held equal architecture for new buildings should reflect the democratic aesthetic preferences of the vast majority of the populace? Because that’s the reason why the Seoul and Tokyo example doesn’t make sense — people want traditional middle-density architecture like they see in upper NW and Capital Hill. Either you respect what people want or you tyrannically impose your own aesthetic tastes on others.

1

BrightThru2014 t1_j1qjkl7 wrote

Does mental health not count as a valid field of health? It is not “some people,” there actually is an overwhelming consensus on what the average person finds to be beautiful. And similarly, it’s well documented that the aesthetic appearance and layout of ones lived environment has a meaningful impact on individual well being (and even things like civic engagement and crime). Also Japanese people are among the most depressed in the world, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?

Why are you against just building things more beautifully? Why is that the hill you want to die on? Shouldn’t everyone live in beautiful walkable medium/high density neighborhoods like those in Cathedral Heights / Kalorama / DuPont Circle? Should only rich people be able to enjoy beauty?

See Chevy Chase Lake for what I’m talking about.

−1

BrightThru2014 t1_j1qcf2f wrote

I support new housing that is beautiful. Our lived environment has a direct affect on our mental well-being. It’s no different than saying “I support new housing that adheres to building/safety codes” — would you support new housing that didn’t have a fire escape or emergency sprinklers?

Parisian housing with elevators would work for me.

−1

BrightThru2014 t1_j1oidrv wrote

Everyone in this thread: describing areas with large uninterrupted stretches of pre-WWII built “traditional” architecture

Everyone in other threads: traditional architecture is pastiche and wanting more of it is probably fascism, also if you don’t like the wharf/navy yard’s modern architecture you’re an unrefined rube

−3

BrightThru2014 t1_iy3rwu8 wrote

Huh, I'm pretty sure it's a well-established fact that Democrat-run cities/counties have higher crime rates due to more lax police enforcement:

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-blue-city-murder-problem

https://mobile.twitter.com/yukatapangolin/status/1582924821759135750

2