Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Youre ignoring my point.

So the 750k condo gets bought by... whomever can afford and chooses that. But it isnt the middle class the plan pretends it will be.

Will that help the overall macro housing shortage? Sure. But its being sold as a way to allow teachers and firefighters and whoever to live where they work. And that is patently false.

The word Middle in missing middle is not “middle class”. It literally refers to a type of housing stock that is missing - townhouses, 4 flats, and mid-rise buildings.

I lived for many years in Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights Ohio, suburbs of Cleveland that have some similarities to N Arlington (Shaker) and S Arlington (CH). I lived in neighborhoods that mixed walkable retail (Westover), townhouses or apartments above retail, large 1890-1940s Tudor and Victorian mansions, “regular” houses similar to the 1940s colonials, and 4-flat buildings with parking behind. It was no issue at all and lead to a vibrant, active neighborhood. Personally I would welcome more of that mix in my neighborhood.

Then why is every presentation about all these teachers, cops, etc, etc being able to live here? Just say what it is. We want to build 750k condos, that yuppies and retirees will live in. Upzone the crap out of these currently existing SFH neighborhoods, because that is what is good.

I'm reading in this very thread about how home health workers will be finally able to live in the neighborhood they work in.

So the missing middle proposal will decrease property values and cause undesirable people to move in, while also costing too much for the middle class? And it will also exacerbate school crowding while creating housing that families don't want to live in? Amazing.

Opponents simultaneously argue both sides. They oppose missing middle because it‘s not low income housing but also they don’t want developers to build more committed affordable units. They’re concerned about the tree canopy but also opposed to increasing tree canopy requirements for SFHs.

I don’t know if I count as an opponent per se (I’m no fan of McMansions being the only housing type going forward), but I’m for a more thoughtful approach to this. I’m fine with more density close to transit (I’m 2 blocks from a metro station and have a good walk score, so I think my street could handle more density than other parts of the county where you’re going to have lots more people with cars). And as someone who owns an older home most of my value is in the land. So upzoning will likely be good for my property value). But I can already barely get my kids into summer camps without the system crashing. The Saturday rec spots that all the working parents want go fast. We went to the library over MLK weekend and it was an absolute zoo. The high schools around here are overcrowded.

The county needs to propose ways to account for more drivers (they want us to be “car light” which my 1 car family is, but also won’t acknowledge that is not possible without more transit throughout the suburban parts of the county). The county also needs to increase its already strained public services and schools. Otherwise this is just an opportunity for developers to make money and dump the fall out on taxpayers.

And I worry this could make the county more unaffordable. I’m someone who was able to eke in as a dual GS14 fed family. We bought an older but liveable home, lived in it a few years, and then renovated. We had to get into bidding wars to get our house. But now people who want to renovate older homes will be competing with developers who see the financial potential of multi family housing, so the land will get bid up even more. This will cause more smaller, older homes to get knocked down and create a new missing housing type. It will be McMansions and multi family. The only older homes that might be safe are those on a weird lot. But I guess I can cash out in 20 years b/c I have a nice flat lot near metro. So if I’m looking at this from a purely selfish perspective I should be for missing middle.

There is no place for a thoughtful, nuanced post like this. Not on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

Most people aren’t objecting to duplexes (see County Board’s own surveys). They are objecting to 6 plexes and 8 plexes - essentially apartment buildings with about 20 people, 16 cars, and either a dumpster or 16 garbage and recycling cans. And no 4th high school or plans to adequately address all these new people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

Most people aren’t objecting to duplexes (see County Board’s own surveys). They are objecting to 6 plexes and 8 plexes - essentially apartment buildings with about 20 people, 16 cars, and either a dumpster or 16 garbage and recycling cans. And no 4th high school or plans to adequately address all these new people.

6 units, 20 people, 16 cars, AND overcrowded schools. Huh.

With a 6,815 square foot building, that's 1,135 square feet per unit (minus space for stairways, etc) which is bigger than many detached houses.

[Anonymous]

Well 8 plexes are out (at least until Missing Middle 2.0 😂)

https://www.arlnow.com/2023/01/25/breaking-arlington-county-board-gives-green-light-to-hearings-on-missing-middle/

They never made a lot of sense to begin with, I had always assumed they were included because it was the only way to get the cost of a unit down to like $260k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

Ok rocket scientist. It's 3-4 units not 2. If 2 units it could be 2 SFH narrow lot line type houses. Those things are like detached townhouses with maybe 1- 2 car garage facing the street. Old house at 1m and to be built at 2.9 each have a 2 car garage facing the street. 2 car width driveway. 4 units double the impervious surface in the front. New plans have 2 car garage at 21.2 width. Need more for 4 separate garages since there are walls. So it's 4 garages across the front with no room for front entrances leaving a vestibule entrance for the 4 units.

Unless ARL lets the builder go beyond where current ot pending foundations are shown on floorplans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

Ok rocket scientist. It's 3-4 units not 2. If 2 units it could be 2 SFH narrow lot line type houses. Those things are like detached townhouses with maybe 1- 2 car garage facing the street. Old house at 1m and to be built at 2.9 each have a 2 car garage facing the street. 2 car width driveway. 4 units double the impervious surface in the front. New plans have 2 car garage at 21.2 width. Need more for 4 separate garages since there are walls. So it's 4 garages across the front with no room for front entrances leaving a vestibule entrance for the 4 units.

Unless ARL lets the builder go beyond where current ot pending foundations are shown on floorplans.

So it's impossible to build such a building? In that case, builders won't build such a building. So you don't have to worry about living next door to such a building, because builders won't build it, because it's impossible to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most families own too many cars, but we’re not allowed to go after that apparently.

What? We own one car per driver. Is that too many?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

Ah, so families with children actually do live in middle-type housing? Well, well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

Ah, so families with children actually do live in middle-type housing? Well, well.

Yes, and they have cars and use schools, camps, parks, etc. what is your plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

I guess time will tell. Someone just built a monstrously large house down the street from us. I'm not a fan but at least they used high end materials, an architect, and are plowing tens of thousands into their landscaping. I've seen some real ugly vinyl clad rental units in the county. So even putting aside the street parking issue I'd rather have a $3-4 million custom home than a builder's minimum viable rental structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

Ah, so families with children actually do live in middle-type housing? Well, well.

You seriously seem a little unwell. The tone and snark and what not while some of us are having a reasonable discussion about ways to do this that make sense. IE add units, near transit and account for the infrastructure needed to support them.

And then there is whatever you are doing.