City of Alexandria rolls out timeline for massive housing reform project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

Correct because land - thus parking - is actually a finite resource. When I bring my small child home from therapy that is inaccessible by public transport I don’t want them to walk a mile to get home. That is a legitimate concern that merits something other than dismissal and derision. Maybe it is not “winning” in your book, but it is legitimate.

Why can't we have housing? Because parking.
Why can't we have sidewalks? Because parking.
Why can't we have bike lanes? Because parking.
Why can't we have bus lanes for better bus service? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable neighborhoods? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable schools? Because parking.
Why can't we have safer intersections? Because parking.

Parking isn’t the only issue and you know that. Parking was never an argument against most of the issues you list. You post like a petulant child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

If it’s not that hard politically then why are we rushing the roll out to avoid making it an election issue (and don’t say we aren’t - our soon to be former mayor fast tracked the package).

If it’s not that hard politically then why don’t others show up at those meetings?

If it’s not that hard politically then why is the mayor working so hard to avoid discussing bonus height density in his Facebook posts about garden apartments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

The high schoolers are using First Baptist’s parking lot every school day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

What a sad life you must live seriously thinking that churches should just be seen as “land hoards.” What do you value?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

What a sad life you must live seriously thinking that churches should just be seen as “land hoards.” What do you value?

I didn’t say churches were land hoards. I pointed to three organizations that own an outsized amount of underutilized property and watch silently as the city fights for scrapes of land for housing. One with three homes that a vacant eye sores. They can do better for their community. Fairlington Presbyterian did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

The high schoolers are using First Baptist’s parking lot every school day.

Since when? Last year they were threatening to ticket and tow them. Did the school get an agreement in place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

What a sad life you must live seriously thinking that churches should just be seen as “land hoards.” What do you value?

I didn’t say churches were land hoards. I pointed to three organizations that own an outsized amount of underutilized property and watch silently as the city fights for scrapes of land for housing. One with three homes that a vacant eye sores. They can do better for their community. Fairlington Presbyterian did.

One of those 3 houses is owned by a different church than 1st Baptist. The Church of God owns it. One of the houses was being used as 1st Baptist’s counseling center until a few weeks ago. And the church is exploring options as to those properties. Although, I suspect selling for a couple million so a developer can build 10 $1 million townhouses has been discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools have been overcapacity for years the roads are impossible to travel on now in the city. City officials have seriously lost their minds. When city council was asked about class sizes and overcapacity issues years ago and asked what their plans are with all the 10 newish affordable housing buildings the literally sat there and blinked. You can't make this incompetence up.

Impossible, you say? So everyone is just sitting at home? Or, if you mean impossible to travel on by car, how come there are so many cars on the roads?

Hey go back to posting hour bike lobby crap on AlxNow. You know the roads are crowded.

My daughter ended up with a daily drop off occupational therapy appointment every day Mon-Fri this summer at a location where I needed to go up duke st, then over and up seminary road. I did the round trip drive twice daily all summer and not once did I see a single bike in the bike lanes. Honest to god, not a single bike even though the times I was driving varied and often included am or pm rush hour. What an absolute waste and cause of more vehicle congestion.

I bike on Seminary all the time. I fly right past the cars sitting in traffic. Probably why you didn't see me is because you weren't paying attention, which drivers never do.

I call BS on this one. I live off Seminary, there are rarely cars sitting in traffic and if they are, they're trying to turn left on to St. Stephen's. There are also small backups going north/west on Seminary right before the Howard intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

Why aren't you addressing this with the mayor, city council, the Episcopalian Diocese, and the governor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools have been overcapacity for years the roads are impossible to travel on now in the city. City officials have seriously lost their minds. When city council was asked about class sizes and overcapacity issues years ago and asked what their plans are with all the 10 newish affordable housing buildings the literally sat there and blinked. You can't make this incompetence up.

Impossible, you say? So everyone is just sitting at home? Or, if you mean impossible to travel on by car, how come there are so many cars on the roads?

Hey go back to posting hour bike lobby crap on AlxNow. You know the roads are crowded.

My daughter ended up with a daily drop off occupational therapy appointment every day Mon-Fri this summer at a location where I needed to go up duke st, then over and up seminary road. I did the round trip drive twice daily all summer and not once did I see a single bike in the bike lanes. Honest to god, not a single bike even though the times I was driving varied and often included am or pm rush hour. What an absolute waste and cause of more vehicle congestion.

I bike on Seminary all the time. I fly right past the cars sitting in traffic. Probably why you didn't see me is because you weren't paying attention, which drivers never do.

I call BS on this one. I live off Seminary, there are rarely cars sitting in traffic and if they are, they're trying to turn left on to St. Stephen's. There are also small backups going north/west on Seminary right before the Howard intersection.

Double BS. Sounds like the geezer who got the bike lanes built on Seminary Rd. because he worried about his grandkids riding their bikes a few blocks to his house. The kids moved so he is looking for reasons to keep the bike lanes. His original argument was based on blind people not being able to safely cross Seminary Rd. in the "heavy traffic."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Ivy Hill Cemetery has acres of unused land, and the neighbors are quiet.

We should really bring going after the Seminary, Episcopal and the Baptist Church on King. Biggest land hoards in the city, and, predictably, connected to religion.

The Baptist Church has a large congregation and uses most of its land and also has many programs that help the community. The Episcopalian Seminary land is counted toward the city’s green space.

The wasted land is at the corner of Quaker and Janney’s Lane. The church sold the land to a developer and the city made him contribute a large swath fir a park. There is nothing but a few benches and lawn. I have never seen anyone using it. It could accommodate a lot of missing middle housing, particularly since the seminary is catty corner from it.

I think the Episcopalians would give up Immanuel on the Hill before an inch of the seminary land.

Why are we making excuses for land hoards? Why should citizens and the city keep looking for scraps of land when the Baptist Church owns three run down, vacant homes on King and more parking than is reasonable outside Sunday from 9-11?

Episcopal or the Seminary could donate 3% of their land and build housing for hundreds. Other churches have done it. We need to stop pitting citizens against each other over 5k SF lots and put enormous pressure on these groups that claim to be part of our community and seem to have no issue weighing in on local issues when it benefits them.

What a sad life you must live seriously thinking that churches should just be seen as “land hoards.” What do you value?

I didn’t say churches were land hoards. I pointed to three organizations that own an outsized amount of underutilized property and watch silently as the city fights for scrapes of land for housing. One with three homes that a vacant eye sores. They can do better for their community. Fairlington Presbyterian did.

The last good thing Fairlington Presbyterian did for the community was encourage abortions. Like many churches, the Fairlington Presbyterian church buildings had deteriorated and the congregation was not large enough to justify even minimal repairs. It was a wise move by the astute Session to sell part of the parking lot to Wesley Housing to fund work to its buildings. They cloaked it in doing good for the community but it was simply a smart business decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

Correct because land - thus parking - is actually a finite resource. When I bring my small child home from therapy that is inaccessible by public transport I don’t want them to walk a mile to get home. That is a legitimate concern that merits something other than dismissal and derision. Maybe it is not “winning” in your book, but it is legitimate.

Why can't we have housing? Because parking.
Why can't we have sidewalks? Because parking.
Why can't we have bike lanes? Because parking.
Why can't we have bus lanes for better bus service? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable neighborhoods? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable schools? Because parking.
Why can't we have safer intersections? Because parking.

Parking isn’t the only issue and you know that. Parking was never an argument against most of the issues you list. You post like a petulant child.

Have you been to meetings about such issues? Parking is always an argument. In fact, it often turns out be the main argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

Correct because land - thus parking - is actually a finite resource. When I bring my small child home from therapy that is inaccessible by public transport I don’t want them to walk a mile to get home. That is a legitimate concern that merits something other than dismissal and derision. Maybe it is not “winning” in your book, but it is legitimate.

Why can't we have housing? Because parking.
Why can't we have sidewalks? Because parking.
Why can't we have bike lanes? Because parking.
Why can't we have bus lanes for better bus service? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable neighborhoods? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable schools? Because parking.
Why can't we have safer intersections? Because parking.

Why don’t you just move to one of your magical places where people don’t drive? I mean, if they are so utopian, what are you doing here trying to screw everything up for the rest of us?

Parking codes make it next to impossible to build such places in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

Correct because land - thus parking - is actually a finite resource. When I bring my small child home from therapy that is inaccessible by public transport I don’t want them to walk a mile to get home. That is a legitimate concern that merits something other than dismissal and derision. Maybe it is not “winning” in your book, but it is legitimate.

Why can't we have housing? Because parking.
Why can't we have sidewalks? Because parking.
Why can't we have bike lanes? Because parking.
Why can't we have bus lanes for better bus service? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable neighborhoods? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable schools? Because parking.
Why can't we have safer intersections? Because parking.

Parking isn’t the only issue and you know that. Parking was never an argument against most of the issues you list. You post like a petulant child.

Have you been to meetings about such issues? Parking is always an argument. In fact, it often turns out be the main argument.

Yes, I am involved in meetings about intersections, school rebuilds, the Duke Street BRT and bike lane proposals and rarely hear anyone bring up parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But in the City of Alexandria, right now, where is the crisis? Where are the droves of Residents (the Council's constituency) that are in "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger" over housing? Unfortunately financial inequities exist, and they always will even in countries purporting to be socialist / communist (look at the immigrant populations in Sweden and France). Alexandria need not destroy itself so DINKs can buy Del Ray townhouses or the Hill staffer can rent an apartment in Potomac Yard. Weirdly, there are plenty of apartments available in the West End - there are 46 units available right now at The Sherwood at Southern Towers, so they are at 89% occupancy. Right --- that developer who will make a cool million knocking down that perfectly good SFH to build three townhouses doesn't get a dime if we just encourage occupancy of the existing housing stock. So it is a crisis of not getting the house one wants or thinks they deserve - what if one wants a SFH, do they not deserve that?

The idea here seems to be that there is no housing crisis if vacant units are available. But there are always going to be vacant rental units available, just like there are always going to be units available for sale. People move in, people move out, people die, people combine households, people separate households...

Also, let's look at those units at The Sherwood at Southern Towers.

391 sf studio, 7 available, starting from $1498/month
514 sf studio, 10 available, starting from $1499/month
653 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 1 available, starting from $1690/month
721 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 8 available, starting from $1678/month
725 sf 1 BR/1 BA, 10 available, starting from $1755/month
884 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 2 available, starting from $2238/month
928 sf 2 BR/1 BA, 4 available, starting from $2290/month
1450 sf 2 BR/2 BA, 2 available, starting from $3013/month
1250 sf 3 BR/2 BA, 1 available, starting from $3002/month

So I guess you are trying to say these rents are outrageous and unaffordable ?

In reality, these rents aren’t too far off from the affordable housing rents offered by the City. Btw the City updates the list monthly.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/AUGUST%202023%20CAU%20Monthly%20Report%2008-03-2023.FINALTOUSE.pdf

And from your other example income of $57k is achievable if there are 2 working full time adults in the household. What then happens is they will often take in other relatives to help with the rent and no they don’t add them to the lease.

How many working full time adults should live in a 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment?

2 adults is the usual max. You might be shocked to know but many people in the US live in 1 Br apts. There is nothing wrong with it and it’s not bad and it doesn’t mean the people living in them are “less than” though apparently it dies in your eyes

Fine, 2 adults in the 595 sf 1 BR/1 BA apartment that's affordable with a $57,000 gross income. Now, where should their children live? And where should the other relatives live whom they have taken in to help with the rent?

This proposal will not correct that issue unless you are talking about bonus height density. Most of the housing that will come out of this proposal will not be affordable. Rather, proponents argue, its existence will one day relieve pressure on the median and above median income markets, bringing down rent across the board.

The problem with this argument is that this area will continue to remain popular based on its proximity to DC and employers.

They also argue their current infrastructure/school projects will prepare the area for future needs. But they also continuously use old assumptions to determine future need. For example, they say new apartments are not a primary source for school kids historically. But if their argument is that SFHs are going to become unaffordable, then at some point those new apartments will become a source for school kids.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing that adding housing supply won't change the supply-demand curve. The basic facts are:

1. there's a housing shortage
2. more housing will help alleviate the housing shortage
3. some people are highly motivated to assert that fact 1 and fact 2 are not facts

My post wasn’t meant to imply 1 and 2 aren’t facts. Simply that there are factors that may mitigate the intended impact, potentially significantly. I don’t think construction of new hosing via 3-6 plexes or bonus height density will outweigh population pressures for decades. The lending environment is pretty unfavorable right now. Some people are also highly motivated to simplify complex scenarios and bury unintended impacts by attacking those who raise them as opposed to addressing their arguments.

I was just noticing there is a ton of land along the George Washington Parkway that could be sold to developers for housing. The National Mall has lots of flat, open space. Fort Ward also has lots of space, don’t mind the historical significance and past. This. Is. A. Crisis.

Or we could allow developers to build 2-6 unit buildings where they are currently only allowed to build 1-unit buildings.

Serious question: Who is the target market for those 2 to 6 unit buildings? Are they not available elsewhere in Alexandria?

People who want to live in multi-unit buildings that aren't big multi-unit buildings. Where in Alexandria do you believe such buildings exist?

Well there are already tons of duplexes. Once you get to a triplex you are effectively talking about a town house to already tons of those. So it’s really 4-6 plexes wedged in between SFH on narrow streets with one side of street parking only near metros (Del Ray/Rosemount/GW Park). I mean, sure, they could pop up elsewhere but that’s the most likely location.

If there are already tons of duplexes, then they're not exotic, and nobody will get in a panic about allowing more property owners to build duplexes in places where property owners are currently not allowed to build duplexes. That's great news!

Actually I don’t think you would get nearly as much protest if you stuck to duplexes. Or even triplexes if room and parking allowed. But (and I guess we will know for sure tomorrow) we are probably talking about allowing 4-6 plexes. And all those nice, afforded garden apartments will get demolished for bonus height density with significantly reduced parking.

Duplexes: ok.
Triplexes: ok-ish.
Fourplexes: HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111

Look, I don’t live in Del Ray so it’s not going to impact me. But most lots aren’t wide enough for a triplex so realistically we are probably talking about a duplex v. a 4-plex. That a lot more people and cars on narrow streets with parking on one side. And I know we all want people to ditch cars but realistically most people in those areas have two even when they metro to work.

But this is what I meant about about not being able to discuss meaningful nuances. And this is why every conversation will break down on this topic, because people like you are so stringent you cannot even get reasonable people on board.

And it’s why you and council don’t want to make this an election issue. It’s easier to fast track it and treat anyone with any concerns like a NIMBY jerk.

Housing for cars is apparently more important than housing for people.

Again, you are proving my point. We are probably on the same side. I don’t even know how to argue with this. We’ve probably met at Dem meetings assuming you aren’t lying about your background.

Intellectually it’s easy, but politically it’s really hard.

It may not be as hard politically as people seem to believe it is, after five billion public meetings where the same older, more affluent homeowners attend and say the same thing, over and over and over. That's not just a City of Alexandra thing, it's everywhere.

Also, what is your point? My point is that a lot of the objections to housing boil down to: but I don't want more people parking cars on my street.

Correct because land - thus parking - is actually a finite resource. When I bring my small child home from therapy that is inaccessible by public transport I don’t want them to walk a mile to get home. That is a legitimate concern that merits something other than dismissal and derision. Maybe it is not “winning” in your book, but it is legitimate.

Why can't we have housing? Because parking.
Why can't we have sidewalks? Because parking.
Why can't we have bike lanes? Because parking.
Why can't we have bus lanes for better bus service? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable neighborhoods? Because parking.
Why can't we have walkable schools? Because parking.
Why can't we have safer intersections? Because parking.

Parking isn’t the only issue and you know that. Parking was never an argument against most of the issues you list. You post like a petulant child.

Have you been to meetings about such issues? Parking is always an argument. In fact, it often turns out be the main argument.

Yes, I am involved in meetings about intersections, school rebuilds, the Duke Street BRT and bike lane proposals and rarely hear anyone bring up parking.

Then Alexandria must be an amazing and exceptional wonderland.