Arlington "missing middle"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You're not having a reasonable discussion, you're just continuing on the idea that was rejected last night: that areas that currently only allow single-unit detached housing should continue to only allow single-unit detached housing, and every other kind of housing type should go somewhere else. |
Anonymous
Not wanting more density is a valid position. Get back to me when you increase summer camp and other rec opportunities so I can sign my kids up for swim lessons and day camp without it being like the thunderdome. Remember when we swapped school locations a year or two ago? That happened because the county keeps approving housing without worrying about downstream impact. You can expect more of that. |
Anonymous
Actually I am. I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means. But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do. If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie. So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly. |
Anonymous
Of course it's a valid position. But is it a good position, from the point of view of public policy? I don't think so, in my personal opinion. More relevantly, Arlington elected representatives also don't think so. |
Anonymous
That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane. |
Anonymous
Why is it bad public policy to fix quality of life and infrastructure issues before looking for more residents? Just calling me a racist NIMBY isn’t an answer. |
Anonymous
1 house out of 5 is hardly staggering. |
Anonymous
Arlington can't really figure out how to build infrastructure functionally. The lubber run community center is beautiful, with a huge plot of land -- but the actual function space in the building is quite small. There should have gone for a less fanciful design to more practical -- it doesn't have to be a cinderblock brick, but we as a county need more capacity not just pretty buildings (side-eye to the Heights building) |
Anonymous
DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature. I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about. |
Anonymous
It’s still far more than Arlington was using to estimate the impact of the zoning change on schools. They used a laughably low estimate, not sure if I could find it again. |
Anonymous
It fascinates me how much bait and switch goes on. For example, they pretend that the change will not be very successful in order to minimize concerns about impacts. If the proponents don’t believe it will be successful, then why do it? What’s the point? |
Anonymous
Yes, they do. This missing middle is 1.7. It’s in a 8 plex complex ranging in price from 1.4 - 1.7 million. People will pay 2 mil to live in a townhouse. This is where we’re at in this area. I got a couple of calls from realtors offering 1.6 and 1.7 mil last summer to sell my 2300sf townhouse https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2114-18th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22201/333840191_zpid/?mmlb=g,31 |
Anonymous
| There's a reason why "missing middle" is the new Smart Growth buzz term. In DC, at least, it describes the profitable "sweet spot" for many developers. If they build a building of 9 units or less, they are exempt from "inclusionary zoning requirements (what passes for "affordable" housing requirements in DC). They are generally also exempt from ADA-type compliance, including elevators, and the more complex safety systems that larger buildings are required to have. Because DC wants even more density on the main streets, developers hungrily eye lower density residential side streets for their "missing middle" high margin development opportunities. |
Anonymous
| Not sure about missing middle, but we know that the Cleveland-Woodley Park ANC doesn't have many missing middle fingers. |
Anonymous
I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature. The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals. |