We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

What's with the fixation on Greater Greater Washington? It's a blog. They're not building anything, they're not in charge of anything, they're not making the decisions.

they are lobbyists with a massive "in" with DC govt who impact policy in an oversized way. they are very wiggly about any kind of scrutiny of their proposals, great at masking their goals under altruism. and kind of awful.

Lobbyists, huh. Hang on just a second...

https://efiler.bega.dc.gov/LRRSearch

let's see now...

Graves, Horton, Askew & Jenkins, LLC
Greater Washington Board of Trade

...nope, not seeing them there.

Maybe you should file a complaint?

Oh sorry--they are an "advocacy group" whose primary funders are "developers" and they also "endorse" candidates. I am genuinely not sure how they have non-profit status. Someone should investigate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

maybe we should have net neutral babies and fewer immigrants? but then we would have to pay our debts as we go, rather than hand them on. Oh dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

Even if you do that, housing prices won't fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

maybe we should have net neutral babies and fewer immigrants? but then we would have to pay our debts as we go, rather than hand them on. Oh dear.

Your solution to the housing shortage is advocating for people to have fewer babies, reducing immigration, and passing a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution? I don't know what to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

Even if you do that, housing prices won't fall.

Supply and demand applies to the housing market too. Just ask the posters above talking about the bargains to be had in apartment rents in DCs these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

maybe we should have net neutral babies and fewer immigrants? but then we would have to pay our debts as we go, rather than hand them on. Oh dear.

Your solution to the housing shortage is advocating for people to have fewer babies, reducing immigration, and passing a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution? I don't know what to say.

Seems like one way to go, since people are concerned about housing + green in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

Even if you do that, housing prices won't fall.

Supply and demand applies to the housing market too. Just ask the posters above talking about the bargains to be had in apartment rents in DCs these days.

NP. Yeah, so many bargains in DC if you have 1.5 mil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

As far as I know, the argument is that increasing the supply of housing will reduce the price of housing, not that places with higher population densities have lower housing prices.

This is when GGW switches to the 'green argument'--that crowded cities of purely apartment blocks are more 'green' than cities with a mix of dwellings including single family homes and lawns. When they can't prove the affordable housing they pull out the Greta Thunberg card. They go back and forth.

Huh? How else would you increase the supply of housing? The housing has to occupy space. Either you make more land (but they're not making any more land), or you put more housing units on the same amount of land. Which is what you're calling "density".

Even if you do that, housing prices won't fall.

Supply and demand applies to the housing market too. Just ask the posters above talking about the bargains to be had in apartment rents in DCs these days.

NP. Yeah, so many bargains in DC if you have 1.5 mil.

We have a large home in north cleveland park that wouldn't go for that. There are plenty of houses below 1.5 in our neighborhood, and far below on transitional or less inflated price neighborhoods. There are also fixer uppers. Every home for sale in DC is not 1.5 and up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

I think (as is obvious) that it is super easy to "offer up" something that will never happen. The developers are licking their chops to develop in Ward 3. It is simply a profit motive--it's a more expensive part of town, so they see dollar signs for their investment. GGW isn't an altruistic movement that cares about people, affordable housing, true vibrancy (or they would see that Ward 3 is already vibrant) or the longterm sustainability and attractiveness of our city.

Let's summarize the dialogue.

-Abolish zoning
-Starting with David Alpert's block, what a hypocrite!
-No, actually he supports that, including support for an actual project on the block he lives on.
-Oh yeah?
-Actually, yeah.
-Well, he's still a hypocrite, because that will never happen on his block!

I mean, I'm not a fan of the guy personally, but these obsessive accusation of hypocrisy are purely bananas. If David Alpert moved to Mars tomorrow, DC would still need more housing, less restrictive zoning, and less opportunity for a few neighborhood cranks to stall or kill projects.

It's not about David Alperts "block". It's about the obsessive slavering by GGW to build up Ward 3, NOT David Alpert's neighborhood. On the one hand, GGW type folks make fun of ward 3 as sleepy and a 'suburb' in the city. But wait, people want to live there! So let's over-develop it without stopping to think why people want to live there. BECAUSE it's sleepy and a suburb in the city. That's hypocrisy!

I live in Ward 3 and like it a lot. But I also think we should have far, far more housing (and denser and more varied kinds of it) than we do, and I'd support higher density on my own block if anyone ever proposed that. It's not just "GGW types" who realize that D.C.'s housing is only going to become even less affordable if we continue to make it impossible for anyone except the wealthy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not a housing shortage that worries GGW. It is the inability to Kickstart new projects in desirable locations. Why don't they build a mixed use development in Anacostia. Because their developer cronies want the big money instantly from other wards. They have no long term vision or even desire to right the injustices they speak of. Only developing green space and trying to sell more homes in desirable areas.

When was the last time GGW ventured east to actually help anybody and not just use their 'data' as some sort of fear mongering for one of their I'll conceived get rich quick schemes?

"They" are building in Anacostia. But among the advantages of building in Ward 3 are that (a) new housing doesn't raise the price of housing in the area, spurring displacement of existing residents, because it's not possible to gentrify an already expensive neighborhoods and (b) spreading affordable housing into neighborhoods that currently have very little of it helps prevent clustering of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not a housing shortage that worries GGW. It is the inability to Kickstart new projects in desirable locations. Why don't they build a mixed use development in Anacostia. Because their developer cronies want the big money instantly from other wards. They have no long term vision or even desire to right the injustices they speak of. Only developing green space and trying to sell more homes in desirable areas.

When was the last time GGW ventured east to actually help anybody and not just use their 'data' as some sort of fear mongering for one of their I'll conceived get rich quick schemes?

"They" are building in Anacostia. But among the advantages of building in Ward 3 are that (a) new housing doesn't raise the price of housing in the area, spurring displacement of existing residents, because it's not possible to gentrify an already expensive neighborhoods and (b) spreading affordable housing into neighborhoods that currently have very little of it helps prevent clustering of poverty.

So you'd like a concentration of poor people in Anacostia? interesting.

[Anonymous]

Tell me why building in Ward 8 forces people out of their homes? That makes no sense. I lived in Ward 8.we want supermarkets as well. We want shopping and safety as well. I moved most of my family to Ward 3, but I still have reletive in Ward 8. They are not worried about being gentrified, they are worried about their kids not being able to walk to school. The city investing its future in Ward 3 is simply the easy way out. Ignoring the real problems for quick development riches. But nothing will change EOR because the city has no vision. And GGW's vision does not include those EOR. To be blunt they want more privileged people in areas of affluence rather than lifting the potential and opportunity of those already here.