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—including Brookland—prove that there’s plenty of demand for living here. Besides, this isn’t a sacrifice everyone has to make. Many residents are excited about replacing the dead zone around their Metro station with something lively.