Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

This has nothing to do with permits or whatever "poor people houses" are. Arlington County defines Missing Middle housing as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plex, 6-plex, 8-plex or small apartment buildings. Arlington states that if more of these types of housing units were built on a lot rather than one single family home, there would be more housing available. So go one of the areas around Williamsburg Blvd where the old Crossman Dairy Farm was located. Those were relatively flat areas and after World War II, the farm was divided into numerous 10,000 square foot lots where ramblers were built. As vacant land became more difficult to find, builders started to tear down these rambler starting about 1998. That rambler was relatively inexpensive and had been housing one family at a time for 50-60 years. That inexpensive rambler then becomes a more expensive $2M house (2022 pricing).

Missing Middle wants a builder to buy the lot and build more housing units on it. So instead of one $2.5M house, the builder would built four $1 to $1.5 M townhouses. Obviously, there is an incentive for the builder to do it because he can make more money doing so. In areas with smaller lots around 6,000 square feet, such as Lyon Park, Lyon Villages, and Ashton Heights, builders could build 3 townhouses rather than one single family home. Because it is closer to transportation, the three unit might be sold for $1.5 to $1.8M. Obviously, these multi-family units are not cheap but they are less expensive than a $2.5M house.

MM is not about "poor people houses" but about middle class wage earners having more types of housing available to them then 1940s and 1950 rambler, bi-levels, colonials, and split levels. Arlington already has thousands of townhouses units, and many duplexes, and triplexes. But many of those that are more affordable, such as Fairlington, are older and do not have the amenities people now want -- walk in closets, primary bathrooms, family rooms. Arlington believes that by building new verisons of Fairlington that can be sold for $900,000, people who are renting or who have smaller houses, condos, or townhouses will be willing to stay in Arlington rather than move to Burke, Annandale, Springfield for an older, larger $900,000 single family house with a yard and parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

I don't agree that Arlington County has to be all things to all people. The DC metro area is 6M+ people now - more affordable options exist out there. If you want to increase housing supply, fine, but this plan doesn't seem to even consider issues around school crowing or transportation infrastructure beyond "only 9 new students a year" (lol) or "reducing parking requirements has lots of benefits".

22201 - but I don't have a 15,000sf lot, just a view of the future 8-plexes.

Where does it say under the plan each unit would be allowed half a car? I'm not saying it isn't there - I just didn't see it. I don't see how you can built an 8-plex with 2BR units and expect 4 cars for 16 people. We don't even have parking permits south of Pershing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

This has nothing to do with permits or whatever "poor people houses" are. Arlington County defines Missing Middle housing as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plex, 6-plex, 8-plex or small apartment buildings. Arlington states that if more of these types of housing units were built on a lot rather than one single family home, there would be more housing available. So go one of the areas around Williamsburg Blvd where the old Crossman Dairy Farm was located. Those were relatively flat areas and after World War II, the farm was divided into numerous 10,000 square foot lots where ramblers were built. As vacant land became more difficult to find, builders started to tear down these rambler starting about 1998. That rambler was relatively inexpensive and had been housing one family at a time for 50-60 years. That inexpensive rambler then becomes a more expensive $2M house (2022 pricing).

Missing Middle wants a builder to buy the lot and build more housing units on it. So instead of one $2.5M house, the builder would built four $1 to $1.5 M townhouses. Obviously, there is an incentive for the builder to do it because he can make more money doing so. In areas with smaller lots around 6,000 square feet, such as Lyon Park, Lyon Villages, and Ashton Heights, builders could build 3 townhouses rather than one single family home. Because it is closer to transportation, the three unit might be sold for $1.5 to $1.8M. Obviously, these multi-family units are not cheap but they are less expensive than a $2.5M house.

MM is not about "poor people houses" but about middle class wage earners having more types of housing available to them then 1940s and 1950 rambler, bi-levels, colonials, and split levels. Arlington already has thousands of townhouses units, and many duplexes, and triplexes. But many of those that are more affordable, such as Fairlington, are older and do not have the amenities people now want -- walk in closets, primary bathrooms, family rooms. Arlington believes that by building new verisons of Fairlington that can be sold for $900,000, people who are renting or who have smaller houses, condos, or townhouses will be willing to stay in Arlington rather than move to Burke, Annandale, Springfield for an older, larger $900,000 single family house with a yard and parking.

OK, but how can they guarantee only half the units utilize street parking unless they have different resident permit rules for these houses?

[Anonymous]

I think it's more likely that the 1 per unit requirement for parking will be reduced to 1/2 per unit and developers will only be required to provide off-street parking for four cars in an 8-plex.

Which means, in addition to squeezing an 8-plex onto a 12,000-15,000sf lot, you'll have a driveway big enough for four cars and another 10-12 additional cars parking on the street.

Is the 6-plex and 8-plex just a bargaining position? And then the county walks it back to duplex and triplex only? because to me there's a huge difference between letting people build a duplex or triplex and letting people build a 6 or 8-plex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

This has nothing to do with permits or whatever "poor people houses" are. Arlington County defines Missing Middle housing as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plex, 6-plex, 8-plex or small apartment buildings. Arlington states that if more of these types of housing units were built on a lot rather than one single family home, there would be more housing available. So go one of the areas around Williamsburg Blvd where the old Crossman Dairy Farm was located. Those were relatively flat areas and after World War II, the farm was divided into numerous 10,000 square foot lots where ramblers were built. As vacant land became more difficult to find, builders started to tear down these rambler starting about 1998. That rambler was relatively inexpensive and had been housing one family at a time for 50-60 years. That inexpensive rambler then becomes a more expensive $2M house (2022 pricing).

Missing Middle wants a builder to buy the lot and build more housing units on it. So instead of one $2.5M house, the builder would built four $1 to $1.5 M townhouses. Obviously, there is an incentive for the builder to do it because he can make more money doing so. In areas with smaller lots around 6,000 square feet, such as Lyon Park, Lyon Villages, and Ashton Heights, builders could build 3 townhouses rather than one single family home. Because it is closer to transportation, the three unit might be sold for $1.5 to $1.8M. Obviously, these multi-family units are not cheap but they are less expensive than a $2.5M house.

MM is not about "poor people houses" but about middle class wage earners having more types of housing available to them then 1940s and 1950 rambler, bi-levels, colonials, and split levels. Arlington already has thousands of townhouses units, and many duplexes, and triplexes. But many of those that are more affordable, such as Fairlington, are older and do not have the amenities people now want -- walk in closets, primary bathrooms, family rooms. Arlington believes that by building new verisons of Fairlington that can be sold for $900,000, people who are renting or who have smaller houses, condos, or townhouses will be willing to stay in Arlington rather than move to Burke, Annandale, Springfield for an older, larger $900,000 single family house with a yard and parking.

You can only build townhouses in groups of 3 under the plan. In any event, the townhouses that are currently for sale for 1.3M+ along the R-B corridor are very large and they have off-street parking (in the form of double garages). You can’t fit 3 townhouses with double garages on a 6000SF lot. You might fit a duplex on a Lyon Village lot, but at the end of the day I honestly think it will be most profitable/least complicated to build a SFH on these tiny lots close to the metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's more likely that the 1 per unit requirement for parking will be reduced to 1/2 per unit and developers will only be required to provide off-street parking for four cars in an 8-plex.

Which means, in addition to squeezing an 8-plex onto a 12,000-15,000sf lot, you'll have a driveway big enough for four cars and another 10-12 additional cars parking on the street.

Is the 6-plex and 8-plex just a bargaining position? And then the county walks it back to duplex and triplex only? because to me there's a huge difference between letting people build a duplex or triplex and letting people build a 6 or 8-plex.

If the zoning is changed, builders will have a "by right" opportunity to build anything they want as long as it meets setbacks and the minimal lot disruption for storm water management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

This has nothing to do with permits or whatever "poor people houses" are. Arlington County defines Missing Middle housing as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plex, 6-plex, 8-plex or small apartment buildings. Arlington states that if more of these types of housing units were built on a lot rather than one single family home, there would be more housing available. So go one of the areas around Williamsburg Blvd where the old Crossman Dairy Farm was located. Those were relatively flat areas and after World War II, the farm was divided into numerous 10,000 square foot lots where ramblers were built. As vacant land became more difficult to find, builders started to tear down these rambler starting about 1998. That rambler was relatively inexpensive and had been housing one family at a time for 50-60 years. That inexpensive rambler then becomes a more expensive $2M house (2022 pricing).

Missing Middle wants a builder to buy the lot and build more housing units on it. So instead of one $2.5M house, the builder would built four $1 to $1.5 M townhouses. Obviously, there is an incentive for the builder to do it because he can make more money doing so. In areas with smaller lots around 6,000 square feet, such as Lyon Park, Lyon Villages, and Ashton Heights, builders could build 3 townhouses rather than one single family home. Because it is closer to transportation, the three unit might be sold for $1.5 to $1.8M. Obviously, these multi-family units are not cheap but they are less expensive than a $2.5M house.

MM is not about "poor people houses" but about middle class wage earners having more types of housing available to them then 1940s and 1950 rambler, bi-levels, colonials, and split levels. Arlington already has thousands of townhouses units, and many duplexes, and triplexes. But many of those that are more affordable, such as Fairlington, are older and do not have the amenities people now want -- walk in closets, primary bathrooms, family rooms. Arlington believes that by building new verisons of Fairlington that can be sold for $900,000, people who are renting or who have smaller houses, condos, or townhouses will be willing to stay in Arlington rather than move to Burke, Annandale, Springfield for an older, larger $900,000 single family house with a yard and parking.

You can only build townhouses in groups of 3 under the plan. In any event, the townhouses that are currently for sale for 1.3M+ along the R-B corridor are very large and they have off-street parking (in the form of double garages). You can’t fit 3 townhouses with double garages on a 6000SF lot. You might fit a duplex on a Lyon Village lot, but at the end of the day I honestly think it will be most profitable/least complicated to build a SFH on these tiny lots close to the metro.

If you are familiar with Lyon Village, you know the townhouses that were built in the midst of Colonial Village, across the street from Innovation Elementary school. That was a much smaller site but because it had R-14 zoning from the days of Colonial Village, they could build more townhouses than they can build under Missing Middle. Those townhouses all sold for well over $1 million. If you can build three townhouses in that neighborhood on a 5,000 to 6,000 sf lot, why wouldn't you. They would be much more profitable than one single family house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the game paying attention to this Missing Middle proposal - how are things looking they'll shape up at this point?

We have a string of 15,000sf lots nearby (funny how 15,000sf sounds so much bigger than 1/3 acre) and I can't imagine a builder throwing up a poorly built 8-plex, adding 10+ cars to the street parking, and calling it a day.

I buy the argument you can increase density without ruining neighborhoods by allowing by-right duplex, and maybe even triplex, construction but allowing 6+ unit housing in any neighborhood? That seems extreme.

It's not extreme, it's necessary. Under the plan, each unit would be allowed a half a car. So an 8-plex would only add 4 cars to street parking and some of the parking could be on site. Don't tell me neighborhood, but tell me the Arlington zip code where you "have a string of 15,000 sf lots." If you do, you are sitting on a big increase in the value of your property. 15,000 sf lots in Arlington are rare --

So Arlington would deny resident permits to people because they live in poor people houses?

This has nothing to do with permits or whatever "poor people houses" are. Arlington County defines Missing Middle housing as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plex, 6-plex, 8-plex or small apartment buildings. Arlington states that if more of these types of housing units were built on a lot rather than one single family home, there would be more housing available. So go one of the areas around Williamsburg Blvd where the old Crossman Dairy Farm was located. Those were relatively flat areas and after World War II, the farm was divided into numerous 10,000 square foot lots where ramblers were built. As vacant land became more difficult to find, builders started to tear down these rambler starting about 1998. That rambler was relatively inexpensive and had been housing one family at a time for 50-60 years. That inexpensive rambler then becomes a more expensive $2M house (2022 pricing).

Missing Middle wants a builder to buy the lot and build more housing units on it. So instead of one $2.5M house, the builder would built four $1 to $1.5 M townhouses. Obviously, there is an incentive for the builder to do it because he can make more money doing so. In areas with smaller lots around 6,000 square feet, such as Lyon Park, Lyon Villages, and Ashton Heights, builders could build 3 townhouses rather than one single family home. Because it is closer to transportation, the three unit might be sold for $1.5 to $1.8M. Obviously, these multi-family units are not cheap but they are less expensive than a $2.5M house.

MM is not about "poor people houses" but about middle class wage earners having more types of housing available to them then 1940s and 1950 rambler, bi-levels, colonials, and split levels. Arlington already has thousands of townhouses units, and many duplexes, and triplexes. But many of those that are more affordable, such as Fairlington, are older and do not have the amenities people now want -- walk in closets, primary bathrooms, family rooms. Arlington believes that by building new verisons of Fairlington that can be sold for $900,000, people who are renting or who have smaller houses, condos, or townhouses will be willing to stay in Arlington rather than move to Burke, Annandale, Springfield for an older, larger $900,000 single family house with a yard and parking.

You can only build townhouses in groups of 3 under the plan. In any event, the townhouses that are currently for sale for 1.3M+ along the R-B corridor are very large and they have off-street parking (in the form of double garages). You can’t fit 3 townhouses with double garages on a 6000SF lot. You might fit a duplex on a Lyon Village lot, but at the end of the day I honestly think it will be most profitable/least complicated to build a SFH on these tiny lots close to the metro.

If you are familiar with Lyon Village, you know the townhouses that were built in the midst of Colonial Village, across the street from Innovation Elementary school. That was a much smaller site but because it had R-14 zoning from the days of Colonial Village, they could build more townhouses than they can build under Missing Middle. Those townhouses all sold for well over $1 million. If you can build three townhouses in that neighborhood on a 5,000 to 6,000 sf lot, why wouldn't you. They would be much more profitable than one single family house.

I don’t think you can fit 3 townhouses, each with a double garage, on the average 6000SF lot in LV while still meeting all setback and lot coverage requirements. The townhouses in the 7 figure price range all have garages. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see more than a luxury duplex fitting on those lots. And it has to be a luxury unit in order to compete with the 3M+ homes in LV.

[Anonymous]

There needs to be some consideration of the capacity of the neighborhood to take all these extra people and cars. We're in Cherrydale/Waverly Hills and the roads and sidewalks are narrow. Only one car can pass at a time, so oncoming traffic has to pull into an unused parking spot to let the other car pass. Sidewalks can't fit people walking past each other unless single file and you can't pass a stroller without walking in the street. Houses dont have garages or only one car garages so street parking is already heavily used. In short, it works for SFHs, but none of the infrastructure is sized for multi family housing.

Yet we have 6 lots on just our short block that would be redeveloped into duplexes or 4-plexes. The lots are deep and narrow, so only one curb cut per lot + 1-2 street spots. If you do two curb cuts, then there will be no street spots. There won't be enough parking. The roads will be backed up with no spots to pull over to let cars pass. The sidewalks will be crowded. It just doesn't work. I'd be totally okay with 1-2 multifamily units on a block, but six? That's city density and this 1940s era neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support that number of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be some consideration of the capacity of the neighborhood to take all these extra people and cars. We're in Cherrydale/Waverly Hills and the roads and sidewalks are narrow. Only one car can pass at a time, so oncoming traffic has to pull into an unused parking spot to let the other car pass. Sidewalks can't fit people walking past each other unless single file and you can't pass a stroller without walking in the street. Houses dont have garages or only one car garages so street parking is already heavily used. In short, it works for SFHs, but none of the infrastructure is sized for multi family housing.

Yet we have 6 lots on just our short block that would be redeveloped into duplexes or 4-plexes. The lots are deep and narrow, so only one curb cut per lot + 1-2 street spots. If you do two curb cuts, then there will be no street spots. There won't be enough parking. The roads will be backed up with no spots to pull over to let cars pass. The sidewalks will be crowded. It just doesn't work. I'd be totally okay with 1-2 multifamily units on a block, but six? That's city density and this 1940s era neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support that number of people.

What do you mean, 6 lots that would be developed? As in the owners have decided to sell? If the multifamily housing had to meet the same
Setbacks and height requirements as a SFH, why would those lots become multifamily? And if they build a new house there, why is it okay for new home owners to have 3+ cars and park on the street?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be some consideration of the capacity of the neighborhood to take all these extra people and cars. We're in Cherrydale/Waverly Hills and the roads and sidewalks are narrow. Only one car can pass at a time, so oncoming traffic has to pull into an unused parking spot to let the other car pass. Sidewalks can't fit people walking past each other unless single file and you can't pass a stroller without walking in the street. Houses dont have garages or only one car garages so street parking is already heavily used. In short, it works for SFHs, but none of the infrastructure is sized for multi family housing.

Yet we have 6 lots on just our short block that would be redeveloped into duplexes or 4-plexes. The lots are deep and narrow, so only one curb cut per lot + 1-2 street spots. If you do two curb cuts, then there will be no street spots. There won't be enough parking. The roads will be backed up with no spots to pull over to let cars pass. The sidewalks will be crowded. It just doesn't work. I'd be totally okay with 1-2 multifamily units on a block, but six? That's city density and this 1940s era neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support that number of people.

Why do you think they would be multi-family? What is the price of a new SFH in these neighborhoods? Even if a multi-family home sells for more money on the aggregate, it’s a little more complicated/expensive to build, and you have to go through the process/expense of marketing and selling all the units. When it’s a close enough call and a small enough lot, I think the SFH will win out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be some consideration of the capacity of the neighborhood to take all these extra people and cars. We're in Cherrydale/Waverly Hills and the roads and sidewalks are narrow. Only one car can pass at a time, so oncoming traffic has to pull into an unused parking spot to let the other car pass. Sidewalks can't fit people walking past each other unless single file and you can't pass a stroller without walking in the street. Houses dont have garages or only one car garages so street parking is already heavily used. In short, it works for SFHs, but none of the infrastructure is sized for multi family housing.

Yet we have 6 lots on just our short block that would be redeveloped into duplexes or 4-plexes. The lots are deep and narrow, so only one curb cut per lot + 1-2 street spots. If you do two curb cuts, then there will be no street spots. There won't be enough parking. The roads will be backed up with no spots to pull over to let cars pass. The sidewalks will be crowded. It just doesn't work. I'd be totally okay with 1-2 multifamily units on a block, but six? That's city density and this 1940s era neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support that number of people.

They will tear out the sidewalks and build more lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be some consideration of the capacity of the neighborhood to take all these extra people and cars. We're in Cherrydale/Waverly Hills and the roads and sidewalks are narrow. Only one car can pass at a time, so oncoming traffic has to pull into an unused parking spot to let the other car pass. Sidewalks can't fit people walking past each other unless single file and you can't pass a stroller without walking in the street. Houses dont have garages or only one car garages so street parking is already heavily used. In short, it works for SFHs, but none of the infrastructure is sized for multi family housing.

Yet we have 6 lots on just our short block that would be redeveloped into duplexes or 4-plexes. The lots are deep and narrow, so only one curb cut per lot + 1-2 street spots. If you do two curb cuts, then there will be no street spots. There won't be enough parking. The roads will be backed up with no spots to pull over to let cars pass. The sidewalks will be crowded. It just doesn't work. I'd be totally okay with 1-2 multifamily units on a block, but six? That's city density and this 1940s era neighborhood lacks the infrastructure to support that number of people.

What do you mean, 6 lots that would be developed? As in the owners have decided to sell? If the multifamily housing had to meet the same
Setbacks and height requirements as a SFH, why would those lots become multifamily? And if they build a new house there, why is it okay for new home owners to have 3+ cars and park on the street?

The 6 lots currently have original builds without additions. So a 1000 sq ft single family house on a big-ish flat lot. The other half of the houses on the block either have been torn down and have new-ish builds or have significant additions. In each case, when an original un-expanded house sells on our street it has been bought by a developer.

Will all of the original houses sell immediately? No. But if the value for these "tear downs" goes up, I do expect them to turn over and all to ultimately be redeveloped as multifamily housing under the current proposal.

The current Arlington proposal would allow these lots to each become at least a duplex (probably 3,000-4,000 sq ft each) with two parking spaces. I'd expect a duplex of this size to result in at least 4 cars, as we're not that convenient to public transit. So 2 additional cars will need street parking per lot and if they put in an additional curb cut, each duplex will result in the loss of one street spot. So a net of 3 extra cars without parking per duplex. If they put in a 3-plex or 4-plex then the car situation is even worse.