So you’re mad that some people now are making more money than you used to make? That’s the issue?

Do the workers dealing with you deserve less money than the workers dealing with diners?

“I don’t think the workers dealing with hordes of pickup orders should be compensated adequately.”

Do you interact with workers while you are there? Is their labor worth less?

I generally don’t think “people” should determine what a person decides to build on private property, no. The “traditional middle-density” architecture in those neighborhoods you like is insufficient to accommodate a growing and prosperous DC. If you want to bulldoze McLean to build rowhouses, that is great, but those same rowhouses are standing in the way of reduced housing costs in DC. Single-family rowhouses are less dense than a five-story building.

The democratic aesthetic preferences of a lot of people would be simply “whatever prevents new development in my neighborhood” and that is insufficient in my view.

Do you think famously existentialist Parisians have great mental health because their city was has consistent architecture? I think that extremely high housing costs driven by NIMBY opposition to new development affects peoples’ mental health far more than like, building aesthetics. Lots of things go into crime and satisfaction, etc. and there’s zero evidence that building aesthetics have a big impact when all factors are taken together. Seems weird to design a city at great expense for small mental health benefits.

I’m all for building things more beautifully, but in the end it’s totally subjective. I think Tokyo and Hong Kong and Seoul are beautiful. Does that mean we should design DC to look like that?

"I support new housing [as long as it meets my arbitrary aesthetic standards]" is garden-variety NIMBYism. Do you think the citizens of Tokyo, a city that doesn't have any aesthetic standards, have poor mental health because the buildings don't all look the same? Our lived environment would be a lot better if housing prices were lower and there was less traffic.

Safety codes are to save people's lives, not to meet the aesthetic preferences of some people.

I don’t think beauty is a valid criterion for opposing new housing. It’s just used as a crutch for people who don’t like seeing their neighborhoods change.

I strongly doubt Parisian apartments would comply with current building standards. For one, they don’t have elevators generally.

I think the point is that architecture really isn’t like, the reason why changes to a neighborhood should be opposed. Like, who cares if Navy Yard doesn’t look like Paris? There are places for people to live there, unlike the $4 million homes in Georgetown.

The sidewalks in Georgetown are hilariously narrow for such a busy area on the weekends. It would be easy to simply eliminate some of the driving lanes or street parking, but then people driving to Virginia via the bridge would get mad.

I’d rather not. Free parking is a huge giveaway to car drivers who aren’t paying for it. We get more dining options and space. DC should be doing a lot more to discouraging driving in and through DC in order to meet climate change and air pollution goals, starting with congestion pricing and charging a lot more for residential parking.