Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

How many people, where did they live, and how do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

No one got pushed out from owning a home in the Navy Yard area. They have have cashed out, or if renting, perhaps rental rates were raised, but no one got evicted or was forced from their homes there. Ballpark area had a few eminent domain cases, but that was a slightly different situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change the law to require any development over 30 units to include 33 percent IZ housing. If DC is serious then it need to up the standards. Otherwise, the push for “affordable” housing seems like an excuse and smoke screen to let development companies build just more high end market rate housing.

which will mean fewer new developments and less IZ

But the mayor says we need lots more affordable housing. We will never grow our way to affordable housing with current requirements of 8-10 percent IZ in qualifying projects. We have to up the percentages by statue.

Unless, it's really not about affordable housing after all.

I don't think the citywide IZ mandate can by itself meet the Mayors goal. It's one tool. Other tools are added AH commitments on specific larger developments, esp on District owned land. Also direct subsidies and loans to create AH.

Even larger developments in Ward 3 like City Ridge and Cathedral Commons have only 8 to 10 percent IZ (and the later was a PUD with greater height and density than matter of right so should have had more IZ than bare minimum). There’s just not the political will in the mayor’s office to require more from developers. Bowser doesn’t want to antagonize her “johns.”

The Wharf though is much higher - 30%. At McMillan about 15%.

In both cases DC owned the land. Per policy, they should be demanding much greater affordable housing in RFPs to redevelop DIstrict-owned property. (Phase 2 of the Wharf is more luxury and is expected to have a considerably lower percentage of IZ, unfortunately.). However, the DC government owns very little developable land in upper NW to redevelop and demand much greater affordable housing -unless they want to sell off a park or one of the fields at Deal or Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

See the problem really is that people either never took, or never understood, Econ 101.

The above commenter does not know the difference between "demand" and "quantity" demanded. Or what elasticity of demand means.

When supply of X goes up, and prices go down, and then people buy more of X, that is NOT demand going up. The demand curve (which tells you how much people will demand at any given price) has not moved. The quantity demand has moved - we speak of that as "moving along the demand curve"

Now its possible that the demand curve is perfectly elastic, which means that any increase in supply will be "soaked up" and no change in prices will occur. But that is in fact very rare, and almost certainly not the case for housing across a metro area (it may be the case for housing in one neighborhood, where a drop in prices will lead people to move from other neighborhoods).

IRL terms a perfectly elastic demand curve for housing means that say, the rent for a 1BR apt is $2500. You build 10,000 more 1BR apts. The rent will NOT go down even to 2499, because as soon as it does, there are 10,000 people interested in renting 1BR at $2499, who were not interested in paying $2500.

The same thing at 20,000 units. Or 30,000 units.

Some reflections shows this is absurd.

Now, it is also true that demand shifts for other reasons. In particular in a region like ours demand for housing increases because there are more jobs in the region. But IF there are more jobs in the region, that demand shift happens whatever you do to supply of housing. And results in higher prices.

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

Navy Yard had hardly any market rate housing at 15 years ago. It was parking lots, gay nightclubs, and empty lots. Cut off from the City by I395 and only recently having gotten a metro station. If Navy Yard had been built up at a 20% lower density it would have become just as expensive. If it had been developed as all market rate townhomes it would likely have ended up as expensive per square foot.

But building all that housing in Navy Yd almost certainly lowered prices and rents elsewhere, by drawing off demand.

You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

yes, almost all in Carroll Capersburg public housing, so not a good data point for the impact of density on prices, which is what I was discussing.

But they were torn down to make way for new townhomes, NOT for high end condo buildings. If you want to complain about displacement from tearing down public housing units in Navy Yard, you should complain about SF rowhouses. But that wouldn't fit the anti GGWash narrative I guess?

Of course some of those AH units have been replaced (some of those townhouses actually contain committed affordable apartments) and the rest are slated to be replaced (with new developments on the nearby parking lots) If you want to complain that DC has been incompetently slow in replacing them (and that problem goes back before Bowser, BTW) by all means do. But its not because there are high rise condos on the planned sites

(BTW, most of the new multifamily units in Navy Yard, are rentals, not condos)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

How many people, where did they live, and how do you know?

The person you are responding to is conflating (deliberately or not, I do not know) the tearing down of an aging housing project to be replaced with mixed income housing, but replacing the AH units, with the process of gentrification. Free association is an important part of the anti density logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change the law to require any development over 30 units to include 33 percent IZ housing. If DC is serious then it need to up the standards. Otherwise, the push for “affordable” housing seems like an excuse and smoke screen to let development companies build just more high end market rate housing.

which will mean fewer new developments and less IZ

But the mayor says we need lots more affordable housing. We will never grow our way to affordable housing with current requirements of 8-10 percent IZ in qualifying projects. We have to up the percentages by statue.

Unless, it's really not about affordable housing after all.

I don't think the citywide IZ mandate can by itself meet the Mayors goal. It's one tool. Other tools are added AH commitments on specific larger developments, esp on District owned land. Also direct subsidies and loans to create AH.

Even larger developments in Ward 3 like City Ridge and Cathedral Commons have only 8 to 10 percent IZ (and the later was a PUD with greater height and density than matter of right so should have had more IZ than bare minimum). There’s just not the political will in the mayor’s office to require more from developers. Bowser doesn’t want to antagonize her “johns.”

The Wharf though is much higher - 30%. At McMillan about 15%.

In both cases DC owned the land. Per policy, they should be demanding much greater affordable housing in RFPs to redevelop DIstrict-owned property. (Phase 2 of the Wharf is more luxury and is expected to have a considerably lower percentage of IZ, unfortunately.). However, the DC government owns very little developable land in upper NW to redevelop and demand much greater affordable housing -unless they want to sell off a park or one of the fields at Deal or Wilson.

Again, this was all in response to this:

But the mayor says we need lots more affordable housing.

My point is that if 8 to 10% IZ is not enough to add all the required AH, that is okay because its only one tool and there are others. Including District owned land in all wards, and also direct govt subsidies and loans.

Its possible that District owned land in Ward 3 will play a small or no role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

No one got pushed out from owning a home in the Navy Yard area. They have have cashed out, or if renting, perhaps rental rates were raised, but no one got evicted or was forced from their homes there. Ballpark area had a few eminent domain cases, but that was a slightly different situation.

This is a pretty large asterisk. The only reason all those people live in Navy Yard is because of the ballpark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

How many people, where did they live, and how do you know?

DP...for one, I grew up here and had friends who lived there. If you are that interest, look at census records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

No one got pushed out from owning a home in the Navy Yard area. They have have cashed out, or if renting, perhaps rental rates were raised, but no one got evicted or was forced from their homes there. Ballpark area had a few eminent domain cases, but that was a slightly different situation.

This is a pretty large asterisk. The only reason all those people live in Navy Yard is because of the ballpark.

There were a whole bunch of people who live/lived north of M Street, which isn't the same as the Ballpark area, which had very few residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Greater Greater Washington is a blog that is primarily funded by the development industry. Its views are in line with urbanism, or the concept that the urban-centric way of life - with dense apartments, public transit, and walking-distance access to places to work and play - is best for future growth in terms of livability, cost, and the environment. Many of its contributors have ties to the real estate industry, though some do not, and they include architects, urban planners, realtors, and general housing and transit advocates. Their political leanings trend progressive but include some libertarian views as well, especially among those who put more emphasis on the private market assuaging the housing crisis by increasing the supply with tools such as deregulated zoning.

Criticism of urbanism and its advocates exists on the right, left, and center. Right-wing criticism tends to fall into the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) category, which seeks to protect one's own property values or the character of one's neighborhood from change, which could mean a younger and/or less white community. Left-wing criticism tends to evoke skepticism that private developers have the community's best interest in mind, that high density development will displace existing residents who might be less affluent (gentrification) or that the affordable housing set-asides are inadequate. They may advocate for other affordable housing strategies such as public housing or rent control, though many on the left support these strategies as a supplement to up zoning. Other criticism, which could be from the "center," casts doubts on the pragmatism of urbanists and their advocates, citing issues like the tax incentives given to developers for high density projects rendering them unsustainable or incapable of funding schools and infrastructure necessary to accompany a booming population, as evidence that the urbanist model may not be realistic.

That's the least biased take I can offer.

This. I have a masters in urban planning and I think of GGW as an industry blog.

[Anonymous]

I really like DC low density. It's such a gift. The feel is so different and unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greater Greater Washington is a blog that is primarily funded by the development industry. Its views are in line with urbanism, or the concept that the urban-centric way of life - with dense apartments, public transit, and walking-distance access to places to work and play - is best for future growth in terms of livability, cost, and the environment. Many of its contributors have ties to the real estate industry, though some do not, and they include architects, urban planners, realtors, and general housing and transit advocates. Their political leanings trend progressive but include some libertarian views as well, especially among those who put more emphasis on the private market assuaging the housing crisis by increasing the supply with tools such as deregulated zoning.

Criticism of urbanism and its advocates exists on the right, left, and center. Right-wing criticism tends to fall into the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) category, which seeks to protect one's own property values or the character of one's neighborhood from change, which could mean a younger and/or less white community. Left-wing criticism tends to evoke skepticism that private developers have the community's best interest in mind, that high density development will displace existing residents who might be less affluent (gentrification) or that the affordable housing set-asides are inadequate. They may advocate for other affordable housing strategies such as public housing or rent control, though many on the left support these strategies as a supplement to up zoning. Other criticism, which could be from the "center," casts doubts on the pragmatism of urbanists and their advocates, citing issues like the tax incentives given to developers for high density projects rendering them unsustainable or incapable of funding schools and infrastructure necessary to accompany a booming population, as evidence that the urbanist model may not be realistic.

That's the least biased take I can offer.

This. I have a masters in urban planning and I think of GGW as an industry blog.

The urban planning industry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

OK, so Navy Yard is expensive because lots of people live there, whereas the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC are expensive because few people live there. Got it.

Increasing density pushes housing prices up, and it's not hard to see why.

The more people live in a small area, the most businesses want to be there too. As restaurants and bars and stores move in, the area becomes more desirable so more and more people want to live there, and prices go up accordingly. That's what happened in Navy Yard. Before that, it happened in U Street and 14th Street and H Street and...

Palisades and Chevy Chase are expensive for entirely other reasons (the houses are beautiful, the schools are great, etc.).

Er no, what happened on 14th street was that people who were priced out of Dupont started buying and rehabing homes in Logan Circle. The gentrification made it a desirable place for density, not the other way around. Similar for H Street and gentrifcation creeping north from the Hill, and on U Street.

Its POSSIBLE that bars etc make a neighborhood more desirable. But again, if so, that means a new nabe with bars will draw off demand from an old neighborhood with bars. The point is that new supply lowers prices in a wider area, the full market, the one tiny place where it is added.

I mean unless you think that hipsters spontaneously generate to fill new amenity filled neighborhoods.

this is all baloney. gentrification and "increasing density" are the same thing. i love these tortured arguments that try to pretend they aren't one and the same.

You can repeat that as much as you want, but they are not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know people actually did live in Navy Yard before all the developers moved in. They weren't rich or white (sorry!) but there were there, and the city pushed them out so it could build lots high-end condo buildings. Yay density!

No one got pushed out from owning a home in the Navy Yard area. They have have cashed out, or if renting, perhaps rental rates were raised, but no one got evicted or was forced from their homes there. Ballpark area had a few eminent domain cases, but that was a slightly different situation.

This is a pretty large asterisk. The only reason all those people live in Navy Yard is because of the ballpark.

The eminent domain was all of commercial properties.