We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad to see DC trash it’s historical neighborhoods just so more 20-somethings can squeeze in without paying market rates. Guess what - I can’t afford to live in Palos Verdes or The Hamptons. Doesn’t mean I get to buuld a bunch of trashy apartments to make those places affordable to me. Can’t afford DC? Move to some other city.

GET OFF MY LAWN

Says Karen who bought a house for $100K in 1989.

No really Amanda. Charolotte/Richmond/PortlandME/Asheville/Chicago/Park City beckons. Millennial heaven. Join your friends! Post to IG! Displace the working class (but offer free Community Yoga In The Park to soften the blow)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad to see DC trash it’s historical neighborhoods just so more 20-somethings can squeeze in without paying market rates. Guess what - I can’t afford to live in Palos Verdes or The Hamptons. Doesn’t mean I get to buuld a bunch of trashy apartments to make those places affordable to me. Can’t afford DC? Move to some other city.

GET OFF MY LAWN

Says Karen who bought a house for $100K in 1989.

No really Amanda. Charolotte/Richmond/PortlandME/Asheville/Chicago/Park City beckons. Millennial heaven. Join your friends! Post to IG! Displace the working class (but offer free Community Yoga In The Park to soften the blow)!

So what you’re saying is.... building more working class housing displaces the working class?

And no, I can’t afford to live in the Hamptons nor do I feel entitled to. I didn’t realize Silver Spring suddenly became the Hamptons and because I’m not a billionaire I need to scram.

[Anonymous]

Upzone Ward 3

Upzone Ward 3

Upzone Ward 3

Allow 6 unit apartment buildings on every plot in DC.
Allow pop-ups everywhere.

[Anonymous]

I admittedly know nothing about this subject, but does increasing density really have a significant impact on lowering rents?

Density in Manhattan is insane, as is the cost of housing.

I don't really get the obsession with this issue. If you can't afford to live in DC, move to the burbs like 80% of people living in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I admittedly know nothing about this subject, but does increasing density really have a significant impact on lowering rents?

Density in Manhattan is insane, as is the cost of housing.

I don't really get the obsession with this issue. If you can't afford to live in DC, move to the burbs like 80% of people living in this area.

The burbs are expensive too, y’all.

There is no reason why any neighborhood inside the beltway needs single family zoning. Build more.

[Anonymous]

Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

[Anonymous]

Academic studies have found that upzoning isn't the magical panacea its ill-informed supporters think it is. It can lead to higher housing prices, not lower:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

That’s because they are too expensive. We have a ton of half empty luxury condo buildings in the city, but then thousands of families in inadequate housing because all the development goes to high end apartments. Yes, those buildings will offer deals to get people in units, but after a year or two the deal disappears and the rent goes way up (the leases are structured to enable them to raise the rent as much as they want year to year).

That’s great if you are a transient professional in your 20s or early 30s. You live in a luxury building for a year or two, and then go to grad school or move to a new luxury building or move up in your career and afford to buy or rent at the pricier rate.

None of that helps middle class families who need space, proximity to schools, and communities of other families. They don’t want to move every year or two— it would be hell on their kids. They need actual homes. Of which there are far too few in the District.

So yes, we need to build more housing. But we need to build the kind of housing that is actually in demand, which the big developers have all decided isn’t profitable. So instead we get luxury micro-units and co-living “dorms for adults”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

That’s because they are too expensive. We have a ton of half empty luxury condo buildings in the city, but then thousands of families in inadequate housing because all the development goes to high end apartments. Yes, those buildings will offer deals to get people in units, but after a year or two the deal disappears and the rent goes way up (the leases are structured to enable them to raise the rent as much as they want year to year).

That’s great if you are a transient professional in your 20s or early 30s. You live in a luxury building for a year or two, and then go to grad school or move to a new luxury building or move up in your career and afford to buy or rent at the pricier rate.

None of that helps middle class families who need space, proximity to schools, and communities of other families. They don’t want to move every year or two— it would be hell on their kids. They need actual homes. Of which there are far too few in the District.

So yes, we need to build more housing. But we need to build the kind of housing that is actually in demand, which the big developers have all decided isn’t profitable. So instead we get luxury micro-units and co-living “dorms for adults”.

But aren't the builders building the type of units that sell/rent? If they are building "luxury" units, that is probably because they are selling/renting luxury units. If they could sell more "less expensive" units they would build more less expensive units. Nobody is into building things that just sit and do not sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academic studies have found that upzoning isn't the magical panacea its ill-informed supporters think it is. It can lead to higher housing prices, not lower:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb

Upzoning has NEVER made sense, even just on the face of it. The academic examples always quoted where is does work are micro examples set in very controlled cities (Hong Kong, Singapore). Without those controls, it just won't work here in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

That’s because they are too expensive. We have a ton of half empty luxury condo buildings in the city, but then thousands of families in inadequate housing because all the development goes to high end apartments. Yes, those buildings will offer deals to get people in units, but after a year or two the deal disappears and the rent goes way up (the leases are structured to enable them to raise the rent as much as they want year to year).

That’s great if you are a transient professional in your 20s or early 30s. You live in a luxury building for a year or two, and then go to grad school or move to a new luxury building or move up in your career and afford to buy or rent at the pricier rate.

None of that helps middle class families who need space, proximity to schools, and communities of other families. They don’t want to move every year or two— it would be hell on their kids. They need actual homes. Of which there are far too few in the District.

So yes, we need to build more housing. But we need to build the kind of housing that is actually in demand, which the big developers have all decided isn’t profitable. So instead we get luxury micro-units and co-living “dorms for adults”.

What?

Everyone builds the housing that makes them money.

The problem is that zoning law makes it only profitable to build “micro-units and co-living dorms for adults”.

If we upzoned all of the city, it would become profitable to build 5-bd units in 4-6 unit buildings on single-family-home plots.
As it is in some European cities.
And then developers would build those 5-bd units.

There’s only two real options: (1) nationalize development and have government build all the big units you want, or (2) lower costs to build and let public-private partnerships and private developers build.
To do (1) you’d need a LOT more money in the DC budget: billions more. We’re 20 years away from that happening, at the earliest.
So you have to do (2). And you do it by rolling back zoning laws that make it prohibitively expensive to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upzone Ward 3

Upzone Ward 3

Upzone Ward 3

Allow 6 unit apartment buildings on every plot in DC.
Allow pop-ups everywhere.

Because why? Why not upzone Ward 8? Don't Ward 8 residents deserve the supermarkets, school investment, enhanced transport, vibrant density and rising home prices (many are homeowners) that would accrue with that? Why the racist focus on Ward 3 which is already vibrant and 'desireable"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academic studies have found that upzoning isn't the magical panacea its ill-informed supporters think it is. It can lead to higher housing prices, not lower:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb

You’re mischaracterizing the study.
The take home from this study is “after upzoning, construction takes a while to get going, so we should think through the short-term effects.”

Here’s the author of the study on this topic:

Yes, good policy, like upzoning, is hard and we need good people in government to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

That’s because they are too expensive. We have a ton of half empty luxury condo buildings in the city, but then thousands of families in inadequate housing because all the development goes to high end apartments. Yes, those buildings will offer deals to get people in units, but after a year or two the deal disappears and the rent goes way up (the leases are structured to enable them to raise the rent as much as they want year to year).

That’s great if you are a transient professional in your 20s or early 30s. You live in a luxury building for a year or two, and then go to grad school or move to a new luxury building or move up in your career and afford to buy or rent at the pricier rate.

None of that helps middle class families who need space, proximity to schools, and communities of other families. They don’t want to move every year or two— it would be hell on their kids. They need actual homes. Of which there are far too few in the District.

So yes, we need to build more housing. But we need to build the kind of housing that is actually in demand, which the big developers have all decided isn’t profitable. So instead we get luxury micro-units and co-living “dorms for adults”.

What?

Everyone builds the housing that makes them money.

The problem is that zoning law makes it only profitable to build “micro-units and co-living dorms for adults”.

If we upzoned all of the city, it would become profitable to build 5-bd units in 4-6 unit buildings on single-family-home plots.
As it is in some European cities.
And then developers would build those 5-bd units.

There’s only two real options: (1) nationalize development and have government build all the big units you want, or (2) lower costs to build and let public-private partnerships and private developers build.
To do (1) you’d need a LOT more money in the DC budget: billions more. We’re 20 years away from that happening, at the earliest.
So you have to do (2). And you do it by rolling back zoning laws that make it prohibitively expensive to build.

Define upzone? Because right now, unless it means something magical, your ramblings fail HS Econ 101.

[Anonymous]

Upzone Ward 3 because it’s mostly zoned for single family homes.
Much of Ward 8 is already upzoned.
See here https://ggwash.org/view/70232/washington-region-single-family-zoning-an-update

I do appreciate the trolling effort to divide this thread on race, though. 10 points for effort.