Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

Ill do you one better: How about we knock down not only SFHs but also all one-, two- and three-bedroom condos. Replace them all with studios. No one in the District gets more than 450 square feet. Housing would be way cheaper then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

No, that's why we need a LOT more housing, and why part of building more housing in Ward 3 should also include building large amounts of high-quality public housing, instead of just mandating affordable units alongside new market-rate ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

Well, you're not pushing anyone out in my example, except I guess me and my family -- but we would have made a choice to have my house knocked down then.

But just because you don't want to live in a 600-square-foot condo doesn't mean no one else does; I'm sure there are lots of people who can't afford to buy my house but could afford to buy a condo in the same location who'd be perfectly happy to live in my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

No, that's why we need a LOT more housing, and why part of building more housing in Ward 3 should also include building large amounts of high-quality public housing, instead of just mandating affordable units alongside new market-rate ones.

Washington D.C. is like New York City or San Francisco in that the number of people who want to live here far exceeds the number of housing units that could ever conceivably be built. That's why adding to the housing supply doesn't reduce housing prices. It just makes the city more crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

We shouldn't build any more 600 sf condos because nobody wants them, and also too many people want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

No, that's why we need a LOT more housing, and why part of building more housing in Ward 3 should also include building large amounts of high-quality public housing, instead of just mandating affordable units alongside new market-rate ones.

Washington D.C. is like New York City or San Francisco in that the number of people who want to live here far exceeds the number of housing units that could ever conceivably be built. That's why adding to the housing supply doesn't reduce housing prices. It just makes the city more crowded.

So the answer is to build no additional housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

Ill do you one better: How about we knock down not only SFHs but also all one-, two- and three-bedroom condos. Replace them all with studios. No one in the District gets more than 450 square feet. Housing would be way cheaper then.

What's so sacrosanct about living in DC? Not everyone can afford to live in Georgetown or on U Street, for example. We live in a metropolitan region, with cheaper price points in several nearby jurisdictions. For example, there are good values in Prince George's including inside the Beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

No, that's why we need a LOT more housing, and why part of building more housing in Ward 3 should also include building large amounts of high-quality public housing, instead of just mandating affordable units alongside new market-rate ones.

And where exactly would you propose to build the "large amounts of quality public housing" in Ward 3, which is pretty built out and where DC owned sites are relatively few? On top of Wilson high school field maybe? What about in Friendship (Turtle) Park.

[Anonymous]

A number of single family house zoned areas are also historic districts. These structures can't be demolished for condo and apartment buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few observations:

1. Obviously a 600 square foot condo costs less than a 2000 square foot house, because living in a 600 square foot condo *sucks* compared to living in a 2000 square foot house.

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts. We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

That's silly, PP. Different people, in different circumstances, like different things. As you yourself say.

And if these condos aren't even remotely affordable - that's because PEOPLE WANT THEM. Demand for them exceeds supply.

This is why adding to the housing supply in DC will never result in affordable housing. Demand will always exceed supply.

No, that's why we need a LOT more housing, and why part of building more housing in Ward 3 should also include building large amounts of high-quality public housing, instead of just mandating affordable units alongside new market-rate ones.

And where exactly would you propose to build the "large amounts of quality public housing" in Ward 3, which is pretty built out and where DC owned sites are relatively few? On top of Wilson high school field maybe? What about in Friendship (Turtle) Park.

No, obviously not in the parks or on top of the school fields. The city could buy land it doesn’t currently own. Ward 3 is only “pretty built out” if it stays as un-dense as it currently is. What if single-story vacant retail buildings on Wisconsin, for instance, were replaced by new housing? What if the huge parking lot behind Mazza Gallerie was developed into a large housing complex, some publicly owned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

Ill do you one better: How about we knock down not only SFHs but also all one-, two- and three-bedroom condos. Replace them all with studios. No one in the District gets more than 450 square feet. Housing would be way cheaper then.

What's so sacrosanct about living in DC? Not everyone can afford to live in Georgetown or on U Street, for example. We live in a metropolitan region, with cheaper price points in several nearby jurisdictions. For example, there are good values in Prince George's including inside the Beltway.

It would be much better for sustainability if we built denser housing in the city that we made affordable for people whose housing budget now only lets them buy farther out.

[Anonymous]

2. Those condos may be cheaper than a SFH but they still aren't remotely affordable. The price per square foot is off the charts.

Price per sq foot is high. But by allowing people to buy less sq ft, we give them a lower cost option.

We regularly see ones go up that cost $1 million. (That in turn is pushing up the price of SFHs. The value of my house has doubled in five years. So, thank you, density people -- you're making single-family homes a lot more valuable).

No, the increase in demand is making SFHs more valuable.

3. Single-family homes and condos appeal to very different demographic groups. Simply put, people with children don't want to live in glorified dorms. If you replace SFHs with condos, you're pushing out people with children to make way for childless adults. DC is already hostile to parents. I don't know why we want to give parents yet another reason to leave for the suburbs.

1. we are not forcing SFHs to be replaced with condos - we are ALLOWING it. If the property owner wants to do that
2. Many people with children live in condos or apts. Indeed is not one of the arguments against more multifamily that will overcrowd the schools? I see a contradictions
3.I don't think we want to give anyone a reason to live further out. But I think you are wrong about how the market segments. Aside from families living in multifamily, there are single people living with roommates in houses.