upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

I'm against upzoning and I'm not dumb or selfish. I love DC because I love the look and feel of the city. There are lots of opportunities to create more condos in DC - that's effectively what upzoning will do.

Hundreds, if not thousands of condos are coming online in every ward, including Ward 3. It will not make SFH any cheaper. They will always be premium pricing. The upzoning movement is about developers getting more inventory, not about cheaper housing.

If you have build 10,000 condos next month, the state of the broader national economy will have a much, much, much larger impact on their price than any increase in inventory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

I find the racism argument comically ironic. During the 2014 DCPS boundary change meetings I met countless white hipster couples frothing at the mouth accusing Ward 3 residents of racism because they fought a city wide lottery for schools. They said they were just as entitled to attend our neighborhood school as my kids were. I mean, the total lack of self awareness was staggering. They claimed to “love” their Petworth, Eckington, Brookland neighborhoods, but there was no way their darling kids were going to attend their neighborhood schools. The panicked looks on their faces at the slow realization that their real estate purchase not not fully though out was a sight to see. They were trying to move heaven and earth to avoid going to schools with their neighborhood kids. Wait, who was the racist?

This upzoning debate is a subset of this argument and equally ironic.

[Anonymous]

When a SFH is popped up and out into a few 2-bedroom condos, the cumulative price of the new homes on the one plot is more double the price a homebuyer would have paid for the sfh.
This only ever brings in more wealthy white people, but the younger kid-less kind.
Not wanting a rowhouse on a block of row houses to be turned into 4-units never has nothing to do with racism or classism. Those conversions buy out multi-generational families. Those conversions bring rich white 'kids' whom local businesses cater to as well.

The upzoning nuts trying to co-opt social justice are full of s**t.

[Anonymous]

**"never has nothing to do with racism or classism" wasn't a freudian slip or slang, but a typo.

[Anonymous]

Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Good to see so many good rebuttals to the “up zoning will fix everything” crowd.

More condos makes a city livelier for sure, which is a good thing. But the notion that it fixes affordability problems, or equity problems, or school problems is hipster fever dream stuff.

The future in dc is office conversions to residential. Already the two big office buildings near the Washington Hilton are being converted (a big boost for DuPont street life) and there are a handful of others downtown that are in the works. Just a lot of properties that don’t work anymore and owners willing to bite the bullet for residential conversions

And the buildout on H street and Noma and navy yard will continue. Plus here and there in friendship heights

Would be nice if more of these building were truly big enough for families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

I find the racism argument comically ironic. During the 2014 DCPS boundary change meetings I met countless white hipster couples frothing at the mouth accusing Ward 3 residents of racism because they fought a city wide lottery for schools. They said they were just as entitled to attend our neighborhood school as my kids were. I mean, the total lack of self awareness was staggering. They claimed to “love” their Petworth, Eckington, Brookland neighborhoods, but there was no way their darling kids were going to attend their neighborhood schools. The panicked looks on their faces at the slow realization that their real estate purchase not not fully though out was a sight to see. They were trying to move heaven and earth to avoid going to schools with their neighborhood kids. Wait, who was the racist?

This upzoning debate is a subset of this argument and equally ironic.

The best thing I have heard upzoning lately is in Arlington. One of the members of the Arlington County Board lamented that the only way she and her husband could afford to live in Arlington was to buy a 30 year old townhouse!!! The horror -- especially since a great deal of the housing stock is over 30 years old. Her next comment about where would her baby live in 30 years? Easy answer: in one of the 30 year old townhouses that will then be 60 years old. Again, plenty of people live happily in 60 year old houses.

The similarity between what PP experience and what the member of the Arlington County Board is voicing is that the30 year old townhouse really isn't good enough for her and the 60 year old townhouse isn't really good enough for her kid. The Petworth/Eckington/Brookland crowd is the same -- the schools really aren't good enough for them.

Both folk want what other people have and can't afford them -- new houses and better schools for a smaller amount of money.

If either thinks upzoning will create new affordable townhouses or better schools among less expensive housing, they are delusional.


I am happy for upzoning in Arlington because I own property and will do quite well with it. But I wish the people supporting it would just admit what it will do and what it will not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only sensible person on DCUM. I'd also note that Fort Totten right now is nothing but empty condos. Right on the subway line too.

[Anonymous]

I’m absolutely, 100% bored of this topic.

DC has much bigger challenges than your pet cause to profit developers.

[Anonymous]

Progressives' vision of a utopia for housing and what they want to tear down your neighborhood for:







Ughhh, just piss off already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

Nah, DC cyclists now have cargo bikes with kids in them. The lycra guys don't care as much about their safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

BS! There are plenty of rationale arguments against upzoning. Why are you so interested in changing SFH neighborhoods? If you favor upzoning, then you presumably favor gentrification. Both involve changing the character of neighborhoods against the wishes of their residents. If you are so jealous of SFH neighborhoods, then maybe you should focus on improving the quality of whatever you consider to be less desirable neighborhoods. Increasing the density of Ward 3 does not help those who live in Wards 7 and 8. Those residents have been complaining (rightfully so) for decades about lack of investment there.