5305 stories
·
16 followers

My journey to the microwave alternate timeline

1 Comment

My journey to the microwave alternate timeline

Author: Malmesbury

Malmesbury is a pseudonymous blogger, unrelated to the 11th-century flying monk of the same name. He grew up in France, somehow ended up with a PhD in biophysics, and is now doing a strange mix of evolutionary biology and robotics on the East coast of the New World. Other blogging interests include meta-science and self-experimentation.

As we all know, the march of technological progress is best summarized by this meme from Linkedin:

Inventors constantly come up with exciting new inventions, each of them with the potential to change everything forever. But only a fraction of these ever establish themselves as a persistent part of civilization, and the rest vanish from collective consciousness. Before shutting down forever, though, the alternate branches of the tech tree leave some faint traces behind: over-optimistic sci-fi stories, outdated educational cartoons, and, sometimes, some obscure accessories that briefly made it to mass production before being quietly discontinued.

The classical example of an abandoned timeline is the Glorious Atomic Future, as described in the 1957 Disney cartoon Our Friend the Atom. A scientist with a suspiciously German accent explains all the wonderful things nuclear power will bring to our lives:

Sadly, the glorious atomic future somewhat failed to materialize, and, by the early 1960s, the project to rip a second Panama canal by detonating a necklace of nuclear bombs was canceled, because we are ruled by bureaucrats who hate fun and efficiency.

While the Our-Friend-the-Atom timeline remains out of reach from most hobbyists, not all alternate timelines are permanently closed to exploration. There are other timelines that you can explore from the comfort of your home, just by buying a few second-hand items off eBay.

I recently spent a few months in one of these abandoned timelines: the one where the microwave oven replaced the stove.

First, I had to get myself a copy of the world’s saddest book.

Microwave Cooking, for One

Marie T. Smith’s Microwave Cooking for One is an old forgotten book of microwave recipes from the 1980s. In the mid-2010s, it garnered the momentary attention of the Internet as “the world’s saddest cookbook”:

To the modern eye, it seems obvious that microwave cooking can only be about reheating ready-made frozen food. It’s about staring blankly at the buzzing white box, waiting for the four dreadful beeps that give you permission to eat. It’s about consuming lukewarm processed slop on a rickety formica table, with only the crackling of a flickering neon light piercing through the silence.

But this is completely misinterpreting Microwave Cooking for One’s vision. Two important pieces of context are missing. First – the book was published in 1985. Compare to the adoption S-curve of the microwave oven:

When MCfO was published, microwave cooking was still a new entrant to the world of household electronics. Market researchers were speculating about how the food and packaging industries would adapt their products to the new era and how deep the transformation would go. Many saw the microwave revolution as a material necessity: women were massively entering the workforce, and soon nobody would have much time to spend behind a stove. In 1985, the microwave future looked inevitable.

Second – Marie T. Smith is a microwave maximalist. She spent ten years putting every comestible object in the microwave to see what happens. Look at the items on the book cover – some are obviously impossible to prepare with a microwave, right? Well, that’s where you’re wrong. Marie T. Smith figured out a way to prepare absolutely everything. If you are a disciple of her philosophy, you shouldn’t even own a stove. Smith herself hasn’t owned one since the early 1970s. As she explains in the cookbook’s introduction, Smith believed the microwave would ultimately replace stove-top cooking, the same way stove-top cooking had replaced campfire-top cooking.

So, my goal is twofold: first, I want to know if there’s any merit to all of these forgotten microwaving techniques. Something that can make plasma out of grapes, set your house on fire and bring frozen hamsters back to life cannot be fundamentally bad. But also, I want to get a glimpse of what the world looks like in the uchronia where Marie T. Smith won and Big Teflon lost. Why did we drift apart from this timeline?

Out of the frying pan, into the magnetron

Before we start experimenting, it’s helpful to have a coarse intuition of how microwave ovens work. Microwaves use a device called a magnetron to emit radiation with wavelengths around 5-10 cm, and send it to bounce around the closed chamber where you put your food. The idea that electromagnetic radiation can heat stuff up isn’t particularly strange (we’ve all been exposed to the sun), but microwaves do it in an odd spooky way. Microwaves’ frequency is too low to be absorbed directly by food molecules. Instead, it is just low enough that, in effect, the electric field around the molecules regularly changes direction. If the molecules have a dipole moment (as water does), they start wiggling around, and the friction generates plenty of heat.

As far as I can tell, this kind of light-matter interaction doesn’t occur to a noticeable degree anywhere on Earth, except in our microwave ovens. This is going to be important later: the microwave is weird, and it often behaves contrary to our day-to-day intuitions. (For example, it’s surprisingly hard to melt ice cubes in the microwave. This is because the water molecules are locked in a lattice, so they can’t spin as much as they would in a liquid.) Thus, to tame the microwave, the first thing we’ll need is an open mind.

With that in mind, let’s open the grimoire of Microwave Cooking for One and see what kind of blood magic we can conjure from it.

The book cover, with its smiling middle-aged woman and its abundance of provisions, makes it look like it’s going to be nice and wholesome.

It’s not going to be nice and wholesome.

Microwave cooking is not about intuition. It’s about discipline. The timing and the wattage matter, but so do the exact shape and size of the vessels. Smith gives us a list of specific hardware with exceedingly modern names like the Cook’n’Pour® Saucepan or the CorningWare™ Menu-ette® so we can get reproducible results. If you were used to counting carrots in carrot units, that has to stop – carrots are measured in ounces, with a scale, and for volume you use a metal measuring cup. Glass ones are simply too inaccurate for where we are going.

The actual recipe section starts with the recipe for a bowl of cereal, which I am 70% sure is a joke:

Whenever a cooking time is specified, Smith includes “(____)” as a placeholder, so you can write in your own value, optimized for your particular setup. If your hot cereal is anything short of delicious, you are invited to do your own step of gradient descent.

A lot of recipes in the book involve stacking various objects under, above, and around the food. For vegetables, Smith generally recommends slicing them thinly, putting them between a cardboard plate and towel paper, then microwaving the ensemble. This works great. I tried it with onion and carrots, and it does make nice crispy vegetables, similar to what you get when you steam the vegetables in a rice cooker (also a great technique). I’d still say the rice cooker gives better results, but for situations where you absolutely need your carrots done in under two minutes, the microwave method is hard to beat.

But cardboard contraptions, on their own, can only take us this far. They do little to overcome the true frontier for microwave-only cooking: the Maillard Reaction. Around 150°C, amino acids and sugars combine to form dark-colored tasty compounds, also known as browning. For a good browning, you must rapidly reach temperatures well above the boiling point of water. This is particularly difficult to do in a microwave – which is why people tend to use the microwave specifically for things that don’t require the Maillard reaction.

But this is because people are weak. True radicals, like Marie T. Smith and myself, are able to obtain a perfectly fine Maillard reaction in their microwave ovens. All you need is the right cookware. Are you ready to use the full extent of microwave capabilities?

Tradwife futurism

In 1938, chemists from DuPont were trying to create a revolutionary refrigerant, when they accidentally synthesized a new compound they called teflon. It took until the early 1950s for the wife of a random engineer to suggest that teflon could be used to coat frying pans, and it worked. This led to the development of the teflon-coated frying pan.

In parallel, in 1953, chemists from Corning were trying to create photosensitive glass that could be etched using UV light, when they accidentally synthesized a new compound they called pyroceram. Pyroceram is almost unbreakable, extremely resistant to heat shocks, and remarkably non-sticky. Most importantly, the bottom can be coated with tin oxide, which enables it to absorb microwave radiation and become arbitrarily hot. This led to the development of the microwave browning skillet.

In the stove-top timeline where we live, the teflon-coated pan has become ubiquitous. But in the alternate microwave timeline, nobody has heard of teflon pans, and everybody owns a pyroceram browning skillet instead.

I know most of you are meta-contrarian edgelords, but nothing today will smash your Overton window harder than the 1986 cooking TV show Good Days, where Marie T. Smith is seen microwaving a complete cheeseburger on live TV using such a skillet.

Pictures from www.corningware411.com, a now-defunct blog dedicated to space-age pyroceram cookware. I will finish what you started, Corningware411.

I acquired mine second-hand from eBay and it quickly became one of my favorite objects. I could only describe its aesthetics as tradwife futurism. The overall design and cute colonial house drawings give it clear 1980s grandma vibes, but the three standoffs and metal-coated bottom give it a strange futuristic quality. It truly feels like an object from another timeline.

The key trick is to put the empty skillet alone in the microwave and let it accumulate as much heat as you desire1 before adding the food. Then, supposedly, you can get any degree of searing you like by following the right sequence of bleeps and bloops.

According to Marie Smith, this is superior to traditional stove-top cooking in many ways – it’s faster, consumes less energy, and requires less effort to clean the dishes. Let’s try a few basic recipes to see how well it works.

You’ll microwave steak and pasta, and you’ll be happy

Let’s start with something maximally outrageous: the microwaved steak with onions. I’d typically use olive oil, but the first step in Smith’s recipe is to rub the steak in butter, making this recipe a heresy for at least three groups of people.

The onions are cooked with the veggie cooking method again, and the steak is done with a masterful use of the browning skillet.

I split the meat in two halves, so I could directly compare the orthodox and heretical methods.2 The results were very promising. It takes a little bit of practice to get things exactly right, but not much more than the traditional method. The Pyroceram pan was about as easy to clean as the Teflon one. I didn’t measure the energy cost, but the microwave would probably win on that front. So far, the alternate timeline holds up quite well.

As a second eval, I tried sunny-side up eggs. On the face of it, it’s the simplest possible recipe, but it’s surprisingly hard to master. The problem is that different parts of the egg have different optimal cooking temperatures. Adam Ragusea has a video showcasing half a dozen techniques, none of which feature a microwave.

What does Marie Smith have to say about this? She employs a multi-step method. Like with the steak, we start by preheating the browning skillet. Then, we quickly coat it with butter, which should instantly start to boil. This is when we add the egg, sprinkle it lightly with water, and put it back in the oven for 45 (___) seconds. (Why the water sprinkling? Smith doesn’t explain. Maybe it’s meant to ensure the egg receives heat from all directions?)

Here again, I was pleased with the result – I’d go as far as saying it works better than the pan. With that success, I went on to try the next step of difficulty: poached eggs.

Poached eggs are my secret internal benchmark. Never in my life have I managed to make proper poached eggs, despite trying every weird trick and lifehack I came across. Will MCfO break my streak of bad luck?

Like for veggies, the egg is poached in the middle of an assemblage of multiple imbricated containers filled with specific amounts of water and pre-heated in a multi-step procedure. We are also told that the egg yolk must be punctured with a fork before cooking. (What happens if you don’t? The book doesn’t say, and I would rather not know.)

The recipe calls for 1 minute and 10 seconds of cooking at full power. Around the 1 minute and 5 seconds mark, my egg violently exploded, sending the various vessels to bounce around the walls of the oven. And listen, as I said, I came to this book with an open mind, but I expect a cookbook to give you at least enough information to avoid a literal explosion. So I wrote “LESS” in the “(____)” and never tried this recipe again.

The rest of the book is mostly made of variations of these basic methods. Some recipes sound like they would plausibly work, but were not interesting enough for me to try (for example, the pasta recipes primarily involve boiling water in the microwave and cooking pasta in it).

All in all, I think I believe most of the claims Smith makes about the microwave. Would it be possible to survive in a bunker with just a laptop, a microwave and a Cook’n’Pour SaucePan®? I think so. It probably saves energy, it definitely saves time washing the dishes, and getting a perfect browning is entirely within reach. There were failures, and many recipes would require a few rounds of practice before getting everything right, but the same is true for stove-top cooking.

On the other hand, there’s a reason the book is called Microwave Cooking for One and not Microwave Cooking for a Large, Loving Family. It’s not just because it is targeted at lonely losers. It’s because microwave cooking becomes exponentially more complicated as you increase the number of guests. I am not saying that the microwave technology in itself cannot be scaled up – if you really want to, it can:

But these industrial giant microwaves are processing a steady stream of regular, standard-sized pieces of food. Home cooking is different. Each potato comes in a different size and shape. So, while baking one potato according to MCfO’s guidance is easy and works wonderfully, things quickly get out of hand when you try baking multiple potatoes at the same time. Here is the sad truth: baking potatoes in the microwave is an NP-hard problem. For a general-purpose home-cooking technology, that’s a serious setback.

The weird thing is, the microwave maximalists of the 1980s got the sociology mostly right. People are preparing meals for themselves for longer and longer stretches of their lives. Women are indeed spending less time in the kitchen. The future where people cook For One – the one that was supposed to make the microwave timeline inevitable, arrived exactly as planned. And yet, the microwave stayed a lowly reheating device. Something else must be going on. Maybe the real forking path happened at the level of vibes?

Microvibes

To start with the obvious, the microwave has always been spooky, scary tech. Microwave heating was discovered by accident in 1945 by an engineer while he was developing new radar technologies for the US military. These are the worst possible circumstances to discover some new cooking tech – microwave manufacturers had to persuade normal civilians, who just watched Hiroshima on live TV, to irradiate their food with invisible electromagnetic waves coming from an object called “the magnetron”. Add that to the generally weird and counterintuitive behavior of food in the microwave, and it’s not surprising that people treated the device with suspicion.

Second, microwave cooking fell victim to the same curse that threatens every new easy-to-use technology: it became low-status tech. In Inadequate Equilibria, Eliezer makes a similar point about velcro: the earliest adopters of velcro were toddlers and the elderly – the people who had the most trouble tying their shoes. So Velcro became unforgivably unfashionable. I think a similar process happened with microwaves. While microwave ovens can cook pretty much any meal to any degree of sophistication, the place where they truly excel is reheating shitty canned meals, and soon the two became inseparable in the collective mind, preventing microwaves from reaching their full potential for more elaborate cuisine.

Third, compared to frying things in a pan, microwave cooking is just fundamentally less fun. I actually enjoy seeing my food transform into something visibly delicious before my eyes. But microwave cooking, even when done perfectly right, gives you none of that. You can still hear the noises, but not knowing what produced them makes them significantly more ominous. Some advanced recipes in MCoF call for 8 minutes at full power, and 8 minutes feel like a lot of time when you are helplessly listening to the monstrous anger of the oil, the stuttering onions’ rapid rattle, and the shrill, demented choirs of wailing pork ribs.

With all that said, I do think Microwave Cooking for One is an admirable cookbook. The recipes are probably not the finest cuisine, but they’ll expand your cooking possibilities more than any other recipe book.3 What I find uniquely cool about Marie T. Smith is that she started with no credentials or qualifications: she was a random housewife who simply fell in love with a new piece of technology, spent a decade pushing it to its limits, and published her findings as a cookbook. Just a woman and a magnetron. You can just explore your own branch of the tech tree!

Let’s not oversell it – if your reference class is “tech visionaries”, maybe that’s taking it a bit too far. If your reference class is “Middle-aged Americans from the eighties who claim they can expand your horizons using waves”, then Marie T. Smith is easily top percentile.

Subscribe to Seeds of Science

By The Seeds of Science Newsletter · Launched 4 years ago
Publishing independent research and curating the best science writing from across the blogosphere.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?

Send this story to NewsBlur
Shared stories are on their way...
Read the whole story
mareino
13 minutes ago
reply
"Here is the sad truth: baking potatoes in the microwave is an NP-hard problem."
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

https://screenshotsofdespair.tumblr.com/post/813234747874656256

1 Share
Read the whole story
mareino
25 minutes ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Calls for Killing a ‘Whole Civilization’ as Iranians Reject Threats - The New York Times

1 Comment

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” the American president wrote, adding that he hoped “maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen” to avoid the attacks. “We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World.”

Read the whole story
mareino
27 minutes ago
reply
I am reading a book about World War II right now. There was a section about how the LITERAL NAZIS knew better than to say things like this in official statements.
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Israel’s Message to a Broad Swath of Lebanon: Shiites Must Go - The New York Times

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Read the whole story
mareino
19 hours ago
reply
The Israeli government is the most effective enemy of the Israeli people. Genocide cannot possibly make the Jews safer.
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
5 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

What DC primary candidates have to say about the FLUM

1 Share

The Office of Planning (OP) released a draft Future Land Use Map on March 18, 2026. The FLUM is a major component of the Comprehensive Plan, which OP is in the proccess of rewriting. I wrote about how disappointing the proposed FLUM changes are here.

We reached out to candidates running in the 2026 Democratic primary and special election for seats on the DC Council and in Congress and who responded to GGWash’s questionnaire for their reactions to the FLUM. Here’s what they shared with us.

Also, take OP’s latest survey.

At-large minority-party special election

Doni Crawford

“[On March 18], the Office of Planning (OP) released a draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) intended to guide land use development and placemaking in the District through 2050. I appreciate the hard work of OP and commend them for releasing the FLUM ahead of the Comprehensive Plan draft, creating additional opportunities for community engagement. As OP continues to revise the FLUM, I would like to see greater density allowances across all eight wards, including missing middle housing, such as duplexes and triplexes, which will help increase housing supply and reduce housing costs.

Today, my team attended an OP briefing on the FLUM, where staff noted that neighborhoods at higher risk of displacement were identified using a methodology that excludes leading indicators of gentrification, such as rising education levels, increasing home values, and growing household incomes. Using its own methodology, OP chose not to add density in these identified areas to address concerns of displacement. I am concerned that the FLUM does not adequately address displacement risk in our most vulnerable communities. Research consistently shows that increasing housing supply lowers costs, and avoiding additional density does not protect residents from rising housing prices. As OP continues to engage residents through the Comprehensive Plan process, I am committed to working alongside our communities to ensure planning policy provides meaningful protections for those most at risk and advances a District that is affordable for everyone.”

Elissa Silverman

“The draft Future Land Use Plan released by the Office of Planning is a starting point, but it needs more work to meet our housing goals. First, let me point out some good in it: I appreciate that this draft plan is opening more areas in the city for additional housing, especially in Ward 3, which has seriously lagged behind in production.

But as the next at-large councilmember, I would not support this map as-is, since it only makes small changes to a few neighborhoods.

The stated goal for the changes was to add enough houses to “keep housing cost increases below the inflation rate.” I don’t think that should be our goal. We should be adding enough housing to bring down the cost of housing and to make it more affordable. We need to be adding enough housing so that working families have the opportunity to live across the city in various types of housing and don’t have to look to far-out suburbs or Richmond/Baltimore for prices they can afford.

The next Comprehensive Plan rewrite is supposed to last us for the next two decades. Over the last twenty years, we added over 100,000 residents. We need a Comp Plan that legalizes duplexes and quadplexes across the city, removes parking minimums, and generally increases density. If we don’t do this right, we’ll face the same problems in the next twenty years as we faced in the last: skyrocketing rents and gentrification displacing even more of our low-income and minority communities.”

At-large majority Democratic primary

Lisa Raymond

“We need to take bold steps to address D.C.’s housing shortage - and the draft Future Land Use Map doesn’t go far enough. Building more homes isn’t just about affordability; it’s essential to strengthening our economy. Right now, employers are losing talent because people can’t afford to live here, and that holds our entire city back. The District should be a place where people at all income levels can put down roots and grow their careers and families, just as I was able to do starting out in a small apartment. To get there, we need to expand housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods, build more homes near transit, and remove costly barriers like unnecessary parking mandates. Planning for more housing is a smart economic strategy because the real risk, and the real cost, comes from not building enough.”

Kevin Chavous, Fred Hill, Candace Tiana Nelson, and Oye Owolewa did not submit a statement.

Ward 1

Rashida Brown

“If we are not building enough housing - every type, at every income level, we will not maintain the diversity, culture and energy of Ward 1 and the District. The Office of Planning’s draft land use map blocks meaningful growth in our city.

Ward 1 proves that density fosters diversity, affordability, and quality of life. I have some experience in this work as ANC and as a community advocate, having fought for housing at McMillan and having fought tooth and nail against NIMBYs to get housing built at Park Morton and Bruce Monroe.

It should not be so hard!

Ward 1 can accommodate more homes for more people—and so can other wards. The draft Future Land Use Map doesn’t give any part of the city the chance to do that meaningfully. We need to “legalize apartments District-wide” and do much more than this plan draft does to encourage diversity and attract more housing that makes it more affordable for ALL of us to rent, buy, and stay here.”

When I’m on the Council, I’ll do what it takes to get these changes in the FLUM. We simply cannot wait any longer.”

Miguel Trindade Deramo

“I’m running to be the next Ward 1 Councilmember to say yes to more housing in Ward 1 and the whole city. Housing is a human right, but we cannot guarantee access to housing that does not exist. To make DC more affordable, we need to make it easier, faster, and cheaper to build all types of housing across the city. That means increasing our supply of both market-rate and subsidized affordable homes and allowing for gentle-density and high-density multifamily housing in our neighborhoods.

The DC Office of Planning (OP) recently released a draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) showing where density could be increased to allow for more housing in DC. In Ward 1, the FLUM suggests increasing density on one city block, plus the Congressional Club, a church, a playground, the DCUSA mall in Columbia Heights, and our beloved Hana Market. That’s it. This draft certainly does not meet the ward’s need for more homes that can be built by right, without needing additional layers of zoning-related approvals.

I’m proud to have blazed that trail as Chairman of ANC 1B, where we have passed a major pro-housing resolution — the first one in the city — calling on OP to use the new Comprehensive Plan as an opportunity to legalize row houses everywhere; to allow gentle density like duplexes, triplexes, and sixplexes in every neighborhood; and to let homeowners build and rent out accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As a Commissioner, I championed maximizing the number of affordable homes that will be created at the 1617 U Street site, a model that should be replicated and expanded at other public sites across the city.

The draft FLUM we have seen should be sent back to the drawing board. We need to adopt the types of land-use and zoning reforms that were successful in unlocking density for new supply in other jurisdictions, including Austin and Minneapolis. These pro-housing and pro-growth strategies include allowing townhouses everywhere, lowering parking and lot size requirements, and enabling higher density on public land and sites near transit. Not all of these strategies can be achieved through a FLUM alone, but this draft does not bode well for the revised Comprehensive Plan, which must enable these important reforms in the near future.

As a Councilmember, I will not vote for a Comprehensive Plan that falls short on creating the housing we need, and I will work on meaningful revisions that unlock housing density in all neighborhoods. The message is loud and clear: we need a revised FLUM that meets the moment. Let DC grow.”

Terry Lynch

“I have never found the Office of Planning to be innovative in its Comprehensive Plan rewrites to meet the needs of the city frankly.

I and a handful of others wrote the Downtown Development District amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in 1990, filed it with the Zoning Commission, and then I argues the case before the Commission during a year of hearings ….the goal was to required housing in an 88 block area of downtown along with retail, arts, and historic preservation goals…..as at the time commercial office developers wanted downtown to primarily be an office park. Thanks goodness we prevailed on a 3 to 2 vote and that launched a Living Downtown. While we got an area wide plan in place we had to continue to fight site by site to avoid developers from getting exceptions from preferred uses such as housing as well as they kept seeking larger office buildings until the market itself crashed.

I support innovative approaches to get more housing. I have committed to bring 5,000 new units to Ward 1. Some stretches can be upzoned. There are many many vacancies along Georgia Avenue, U Street, and upper 14th St NW that need to be returned to active use. There are numerous sites such as Police station 4D that needs to have mixed use and could provide housing and retail along with a new police station. Lot sizes need to be examined careful as do parking requirements. Howard U has many long vacant properties that should be redeveloped for mixed use to include housing and retail.

Ward 1 can achieve vitality. The Office Planning neds to re-think what it is doing …regardless of them I will work with stakeholders to achieve what is needed in Ward 1 as we did in downtown DC. I have a clear record of getting preferred uses that have benefited the city.”

Aparna Raj

“In addition to the statement, I also just wanted to share that I put out this tweet thread as an initial response to the FLUM, and attended both the YIMBY rally and the OP session in MLK library to provide feedback on it. I’m also working on a direct to camera social media video to try to share more information and direct people to OP’s survey, hopefully to be released later this week!

Every single person in Ward 1 and across DC deserves a dignified, affordable place to live. But that life is out of reach for too many, and the Office of Planning’s draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) has failed to meet the scale of the housing crisis. I share GGWash’s priority of ensuring that the Comprehensive Plan rewrite maximizes & legalizes the greatest amount of housing to be built throughout the District. It is extremely disappointing to see OP only increasing zoned capacity by 3% — with just 15,000 homes projected to be built by 2050 — despite 45,000 homes being built since 2019.

The Office of Planning’s Future Land Use Map does not just fail to meet the moment; it deeply entrenches racial segregation and shameful exclusionary zoning at the expense of the working class and people of color. DC has historically pushed these communities out — and in a time where our city can propose a vision for the next 25 years to be more inclusive & build the housing we need to grow & thrive, the Office of Planning is conveying through the draft FLUM that wealthy neighborhoods can continue to exclude more housing, working people, and people of color from their neighborhoods for the next generation. It is unacceptable, for instance, that neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park continue to be solely zoned for single-family detached homes. OP must adjust the FLUM to equitably distribute more moderate-scale and medium-scale neighborhood designations in the planning areas that have blocked new housing construction & haven’t even hit 40% of their designated 2025 housing target: Capitol Hill, Near Northwest, and Rock Creek West. And as I conveyed to the Office of Planning (OP) staff at the in-person workshop this past Saturday, we must legalize row homes, apartments, and townhomes across DC.

Further, I think the FLUM undercuts the amount of housing we can (and must) create in Ward 1. I’m running for office in Ward 1 because I love my neighborhood and want to live here for the rest of my life, with the chance to start a family, age in place, and find housing for all phases of my life. But unfortunately, a lack of urgency in increasing housing production will make it unaffordable for me to permanently stay in Ward 1. As a tenant organizer, I have talked to so many other renters who feel that rising housing costs will eventually price them out of DC.

As I mentioned in my GGWash questionnaire, Ward 1 has been effective in building new housing — with our planning area Mid-City exceeding 154% of Mayor Bowser’s target goal, with 36% of new units being built since 2019 being affordable. Even then, I believe Ward 1 can and must continue to grow. Upzoning more of Ward 1, especially along (but not limited to) our transit and commercial corridors will be critical in ensuring we meet the target I set for 72,000 homes being built District-wide by 2032. In Ward 1 in particular, we can upzone more blocks—especially within a 20-minute walking radius of our Metrorail stations & 15-minute walking radius of our Metrobus stations—to legalize the building of sixplexes and taller apartment buildings via the medium-scale residential neighborhood, large-scale residential neighborhood, and regional center neighborhood designations from OP.

I also believe the FLUM should be codifying smaller setback requirements, expanding lot coverage allowances, reducing minimum lot sizes & widths, eliminating parking minimums (and instituting parking maximums near transit), and ending floor area ratio (FAR) mandates as a key set of measures to help increase housing construction—particularly of starter homes and row homes. As I also note in my questionnaire, the District is underutilizing publicly owned land and the FLUM’s zoning should be adjusted to legalize the building of mixed-use, high-density housing at our government offices, recreation centers, and libraries — within Ward 1, this includes but is not limited to the Reeves Center, MPD/FEMS at 1617 U St NW, and DCHFA HQ at 815 Florida Ave NW.

If elected to represent Ward 1, I will introduce amendment after amendment to the Comprehensive Plan—and vote no on the Comp Plan & draft FLUM as currently presented—until the revisions I have noted above have been made.

As I have emphasized throughout this campaign, making housing more affordable in DC requires both increased production and strong tenant protections. Just like I have been proudly backed by a coalition of tenants and working people who will fight with me in the Wilson Building to protect & expand rent stabilization and TOPA when I am in office, I will also mobilize and organize that coalition to fight for greater housing supply in the Comp Plan rewrite to bring down housing costs.

As a first step, once the Office of Planning releases its survey in the coming days/weeks for those unable to attend its in-person workshops, my campaign will commit to encouraging all of our supporters to submit comments urging the end of exclusionary zoning, legalization of apartments/rowhomes/townhomes District-wide, and the building of high-density, mixed-use buildings on publicly owned land & within a 20/15-minute walking radius of rail/bus stations — along with GGWash’s other listed priorities for the FLUM.

And if elected, the mobilizing and organizing work will not stop on June 16, or on November 3. I am running to be an organizer in office. Our campaign has mobilized hundreds of volunteers and activated people who have never participated in local politics before. This broad coalition and energy is going to be critical to passing the ambitious legislative agenda the District needs. Throughout my term, I will continue to partner with organized labor, tenants’ unions, Greater Greater Washington, and other housing supply and land use champions to hold OP accountable & ensure this Comprehensive Plan rewrite codifies a vision that builds more housing to enable the District to grow and be affordable for all residents.”

Ward 3

Matthew Frumin did not submit a statement.

Ward 5

Zachary Parker

“The draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by the DC Office of Planning is a cautious response to the District’s housing and equity challenges. While the draft FLUM modestly increases housing capacity, it fails to address the legacy of concentrated industrial land in Ward 5. Rather than confronting current inequities, where most industrial land is in Ward 5, and reimagining these areas for high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods, the draft largely preserves the status quo and perpetuates these inequities into the foreseeable future. This is not only a missed opportunity but also concerning given the well-documented effects of toxic air pollution in these areas.

The plan could also enable more high-density, mixed-use buildings, particularly along commercial corridors where the District should concentrate new housing, jobs, and walkable amenities. Corridors such as Bladensburg Road NE largely maintain the status quo, despite being well-suited for additional housing and mixed-use development. That said, it is encouraging to see Rhode Island Avenue NE moving in a positive direction, and I appreciate the Office of Planning’s partnership in reimagining that corridor with me. More of this approach is needed across the city.

The risk of displacement remains greatest in Wards 5, 7, and 8, which is why we must use every tool in our toolkit to deliver more (affordable) housing and allow more Washingtonians to stay and thrive here in the District. I have requested a meeting with the Office of Planning to better understand these decisions, including why corridors like Bladensburg Road were not designated for greater density and how the agency plans to meaningfully engage residents in shaping a more equitable final map.”

Bernita Carmichael did not submit a statement.

Ward 6

Charles Allen

“The first draft of DC’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) misses the mark. It doesn’t lay out a vision of how we grow our city, add more homes, and make DC more livable and affordable. The Comprehensive Plan is the opportunity to imagine our city’s future with ambitious growth. While it includes some changes for greater density at transit hubs, the draft FLUM does not go nearly far enough. It must change to support higher density and more homes around transit, remove parking minimums to make construction and rental costs lower, and maximize DC’s ability to create new housing as part of the larger strategy to improve affordability across our city. I look forward to engaging with neighbors as this process moves forward to make the changes we need.”

Delegate to the US House of Representatives

Brooke Pinto

“DC is in the throes of a housing affordability crisis: tens of thousands of Washingtonians spend more than half their income on rent and buying a home and building generational wealth is growing impossible. We need urgent, bold action to build a DC that working people can actually afford to live in. We have the opportunity over the next few decades to make DC the best place in the country to raise a family, start a business, and retire - but restrictive, regressive zoning will throttle the vibrancy of our city and relegate the nation’s capital to an era of stagnation.”

Robert White

“I share the goal of making it possible for more residents to live in Washington, DC. Our land use policies must evolve to meet the scale of our housing needs and ensure they benefit all DC residents regardless of household size, income level, or neighborhood. We need a Comprehensive Plan and FLUM that allow for significantly more housing, particularly near transit and along major corridors.

On the DC Council, I have consistently supported efforts to expand housing supply, strengthen tenant protections, and hold agencies accountable for delivering housing outcomes. That work has reinforced my belief that we must pair strong planning with real execution to address the housing crisis.

During my five years serving as legislative counsel to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, I worked on federal land transfers that ultimately enabled transformative mixed-use developments at the Wharf, Navy Yard, Walter Reed, Hill East, and Saint Elizabeths. Those projects produced thousands of housing units, including affordable homes, because surplus federal land was transferred in a way that allowed the District to plan and build strategically.

As Delegate, I will continue to align federal policy including unlocking federal land for housing and ensuring federal investments to support the District’s growth strategy. At the same time, growth must be paired with strong tenant protections, anti-displacement strategies, and investments in infrastructure and public services.

We have an opportunity to align our land use policies with our values and build a more inclusive, affordable city for the next generation of Washingtonians. I will be the quarterback that DC needs to make the Council, Mayor, and Attorney General a united front to fight for DC and its residents.”

Kinney Zalesne

“While I applaud the Office of Planning for their efforts to simplify land use by consolidating and simplifying the dozens of existing categories into just 12, the proposed future land use map (FLUM) falls far short of where it needs to be. The proposed map, though offering moderate increases in density in a few spots, leaves most of the rest of the map and its overly restrictive land uses unchanged. Not only does this force all hope for expanding housing supply onto just a handful of neighborhoods, it further perpetuates decades of economic and racial segregation. In order for DC to meet its housing needs and not push residents to smaller and smaller pockets or worse, out of the District entirely, we need housing of every type allowed in every neighborhood in our great city. This includes my own neighborhood in Ward 3. I have lived in this city for 30 years and I, like most parents, want my kids to be able to afford to live here too. This land use plan makes that harder if not impossible. We cannot continue to expect a near status quo to solve the issues of affordability and opportunity. I am calling on the DC Office of Planning to revise this map and I will be at future DC 2050 public meetings to push for just that.”

Top image: We appreciate that many candidates, like us, think the draft FLUM ain’t it. One of the reasons it ain’t it is because it doesn’t even legalize rowhome District-wide. Image by afagen licensed under Creative Commons.

Comment on this article

Read the whole story
mareino
3 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Trump really said this. Out loud. In public.

1 Share

I found confirmation at The New Republic:
Donald Trump doesn’t think the federal government should fund child care, Medicare, or Medicaid.

At an Easter Lunch reception at the White House Wednesday, the president told guests what exactly he thought about what the U.S. should be prioritizing, and it doesn’t bode well for the government’s most widely used and popular social programs.

“I said to [Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought], ‘Don’t send any money for daycare because the United States can’t take care of daycare.’ That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people,” Trump said. “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. You got to let a state take care of daycare and they should pay for it, too. They should pay. They’ll have to raise their taxes, but they should pay for it. And we could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up.”


“It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country. But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place, all you have to you have to let states take care of them,” Trump continued.

Read the whole story
mareino
4 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories