The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

OK, so you are that dense. You should stop advocating for increased density if you want progress because you're completely ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

OK, so you are that dense. You should stop advocating for increased density if you want progress because you're completely ineffective.

Are you one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM is mean and insulting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

OK, so you are that dense. You should stop advocating for increased density if you want progress because you're completely ineffective.

Are you one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM is mean and insulting?

No, I'm one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM approach to getting more housing is fatally flawed and results solely in increasing profits for big developers without producing enough housing to drive down prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

OK, so you are that dense. You should stop advocating for increased density if you want progress because you're completely ineffective.

Are you one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM is mean and insulting?

No, I'm one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM approach to getting more housing is fatally flawed and results solely in increasing profits for big developers without producing enough housing to drive down prices.

A duplex results in twice as many housing units as a singleplex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

I know how many duplexes will be built on a property zoned for a uniplex: zero.

OK, so you are that dense. You should stop advocating for increased density if you want progress because you're completely ineffective.

Are you one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM is mean and insulting?

No, I'm one of the people complaining that the Urbanist Cult TM approach to getting more housing is fatally flawed and results solely in increasing profits for big developers without producing enough housing to drive down prices.

A duplex results in twice as many housing units as a singleplex.

And here we go in a circle again. The duplex doesn't automatically get built just because of zoning. Unless you penalize underutilization, the SFH probably gets built instead. But urbanists oppose any regulations on developers, wrongly assuming that the market is functioning and we have perfect competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And here we go in a circle again. The duplex doesn't automatically get built just because of zoning. Unless you penalize underutilization, the SFH probably gets built instead. But urbanists oppose any regulations on developers, wrongly assuming that the market is functioning and we have perfect competition.

Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning changes: >0%.
Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning doesn't change: 0%.

[Anonymous]

As long as the elites can bail on your city or county when they don't like the results of policies they support today. Sure, go for it.

First MoCo went to HoCo, Fredneck, and Fairfax County.

Then Fairfax County moves to Loudoun County.

Then, NOVA folks were moving to Fredericksburg.

Then Richmond.

Now, moving to NC.

Next it will be GA, SC. . .

Just move, destroy, move, destroy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And here we go in a circle again. The duplex doesn't automatically get built just because of zoning. Unless you penalize underutilization, the SFH probably gets built instead. But urbanists oppose any regulations on developers, wrongly assuming that the market is functioning and we have perfect competition.

Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning changes: >0%.
Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning doesn't change: 0%.

You missed the part where I said zoning should and will change? You're arguing with me about something we agree on. That's why you're ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And here we go in a circle again. The duplex doesn't automatically get built just because of zoning. Unless you penalize underutilization, the SFH probably gets built instead. But urbanists oppose any regulations on developers, wrongly assuming that the market is functioning and we have perfect competition.

Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning changes: >0%.
Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning doesn't change: 0%.

You missed the part where I said zoning should and will change? You're arguing with me about something we agree on. That's why you're ineffective.

Then what are you arguing about? Is your point that zoning changes, alone, won't get duplexes built? I think that everybody understands that duplexes don't magically sprout from the earth like mushrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as the elites can bail on your city or county when they don't like the results of policies they support today. Sure, go for it.

First MoCo went to HoCo, Fredneck, and Fairfax County.

Then Fairfax County moves to Loudoun County.

Then, NOVA folks were moving to Fredericksburg.

Then Richmond.

Now, moving to NC.

Next it will be GA, SC. . .

Just move, destroy, move, destroy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And here we go in a circle again. The duplex doesn't automatically get built just because of zoning. Unless you penalize underutilization, the SFH probably gets built instead. But urbanists oppose any regulations on developers, wrongly assuming that the market is functioning and we have perfect competition.

Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning changes: >0%.
Probability that the duplex gets built if the zoning doesn't change: 0%.

You missed the part where I said zoning should and will change? You're arguing with me about something we agree on. That's why you're ineffective.

Then what are you arguing about? Is your point that zoning changes, alone, won't get duplexes built? I think that everybody understands that duplexes don't magically sprout from the earth like mushrooms.

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as the elites can bail on your city or county when they don't like the results of policies they support today. Sure, go for it.

First MoCo went to HoCo, Fredneck, and Fairfax County.

Then Fairfax County moves to Loudoun County.

Then, NOVA folks were moving to Fredericksburg.

Then Richmond.

Now, moving to NC.

Next it will be GA, SC. . .

Just move, destroy, move, destroy

The GOP elites, that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.