Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[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:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

Sorry, chief. The west side vacants near downtown are zoned R-8, which permits more than 50 units/acre MF residential. It’s not zoning. YIMBYism has done you a disservice by making you think the government controls development instead of land owners.

When all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Anonymous]

Smart Growth advocates claim that adding density to DC neighborhoods fosters diversity, inclusion and affordability. This is a crock of BS intended to convince politicians to upFLUM and upzone to add even more expensive, market rate flats and condos. Look at the billboard ads on the new Upton Place development going up next to the massive City Ridge. Upton Place claims it will be “one of Northwest DC’s most exclusive enclaves.” Inclusive? More like incredible. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

If the market prefers SFH, SFH will get built. Developers aren’t going to take a hit to the bottom line so some so-called Millennial feels good about themselves. Honestly Boomers- just say what you’re thinking: you think missing middle is going to bring the brown poors to your ‘hood and you can’t stand it. I’d love to have families who aren’t hedge fund managers join me in my neighborhood north of Langston, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

If the market prefers SFH, SFH will get built. Developers aren’t going to take a hit to the bottom line so some so-called Millennial feels good about themselves. Honestly Boomers- just say what you’re thinking: you think missing middle is going to bring the brown poors to your ‘hood and you can’t stand it. I’d love to have families who aren’t hedge fund managers join me in my neighborhood north of Langston, thanks.

In Ward 3, some neighborhoods like Woodley Park and Cleveland Park have a lot of so-called “missing middle.” Frumin’s base neighborhoods (ie, AU Park and Spring Valley) have virtually none at all. That said, one reason that SFH prices continue to climb even as interest rates climb also is that after the pandemic buyers want more room and garden space more than ever. Eroding SFH zoning will just make supply and prices in DC more dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

If the market prefers SFH, SFH will get built. Developers aren’t going to take a hit to the bottom line so some so-called Millennial feels good about themselves. Honestly Boomers- just say what you’re thinking: you think missing middle is going to bring the brown poors to your ‘hood and you can’t stand it. I’d love to have families who aren’t hedge fund managers join me in my neighborhood north of Langston, thanks.

In Ward 3, some neighborhoods like Woodley Park and Cleveland Park have a lot of so-called “missing middle.” Frumin’s base neighborhoods (ie, AU Park and Spring Valley) have virtually none at all. That said, one reason that SFH prices continue to climb even as interest rates climb also is that after the pandemic buyers want more room and garden space more than ever. Eroding SFH zoning will just make supply and prices in DC more dear.

The rarer single family homes become, the more they will be worth. Their values will go to the moon, people will never sell them and only the truly rich will be able to afford them. We will become like NYC.

[Anonymous]

“If the market prefers” is a weird way of saying “profit maximization”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

If the market prefers SFH, SFH will get built. Developers aren’t going to take a hit to the bottom line so some so-called Millennial feels good about themselves. Honestly Boomers- just say what you’re thinking: you think missing middle is going to bring the brown poors to your ‘hood and you can’t stand it. I’d love to have families who aren’t hedge fund managers join me in my neighborhood north of Langston, thanks.

In Ward 3, some neighborhoods like Woodley Park and Cleveland Park have a lot of so-called “missing middle.” Frumin’s base neighborhoods (ie, AU Park and Spring Valley) have virtually none at all. That said, one reason that SFH prices continue to climb even as interest rates climb also is that after the pandemic buyers want more room and garden space more than ever. Eroding SFH zoning will just make supply and prices in DC more dear.

The rarer single family homes become, the more they will be worth. Their values will go to the moon, people will never sell them and only the truly rich will be able to afford them. We will become like NYC.

This logic is silly. There are plenty of SFH in the far out areas where land is not as expensive. It’s completely unreasonable to expect that the capital of the Free World is going to be surrounded by acres of split levels on 8,000 SF lots. That made sense when no one but government workers lived here and we had land to spare. It makes no sense when people are now commuting from West Virginia.

Before Arlington stopped building duplexes to keep out the riff raff in the 1930s, a fair number were built in Rosslyn, Penrose, EFC, Westover, Virginia Square, and South Arlington. They continue to remain highly popular even though they are old and the zoning restrictions on them are ridiculous - I’ve never seen one last longer than a week on the market. That’s “missing middle” the market wants. Build more of it and let them build it like the ones in Philadelphia and DC that are architecturally distinct and beautiful, instead of the half a brick hut model you get here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“If the market prefers” is a weird way of saying “profit maximization”.

The market prefers SFH, which is why they cost more. A developer can maximalize profit converting SFH to multi-unit structures. The market doesn’t prefer multi-units which is why they are cheaper and don’t appreciate.

[Anonymous]

Remember that McLean Gardens was built as workforce housing and became “missing middle.” Now Smart Growth wants it razed for dense luxury mixed use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“If the market prefers” is a weird way of saying “profit maximization”.

The market prefers SFH, which is why they cost more. A developer can maximalize profit converting SFH to multi-unit structures. The market doesn’t prefer multi-units which is why they are cheaper and don’t appreciate.

The market prefers SFH, which is why if you allow more than SFH zoning, SFH will still get built? Sounds good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“If the market prefers” is a weird way of saying “profit maximization”.

The market prefers SFH, which is why they cost more. A developer can maximalize profit converting SFH to multi-unit structures. The market doesn’t prefer multi-units which is why they are cheaper and don’t appreciate.

The market prefers SFH, which is why if you allow more than SFH zoning, SFH will still get built? Sounds good.

You present yourself as a smart Econ guy and yet ignore price signals entirely. It’s funny how ridiculously simplistic your understanding of economics and market structure. Conflating consumer preference with producer profit motive in an artificially constrained market just makes you look dumb. Sorry, I have to be honest with you. If you want to debate it people, you need to educate yourself first.

[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:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

I bought on Capitol Hill, and we have rowhouses with setbacks, porches, yards, etc. it’s what makes the neighborhood so nice.

[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:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

I bought on Capitol Hill, and we have rowhouses with setbacks, porches, yards, etc. it’s what makes the neighborhood so nice.

Exactly. And would you believe that YIMBY urbanists think those things (setbacks, yards, etc) are bad?

Every neighborhood in Baltimore that has rowhouses like Capitol Hill, front setbacks/porches, is in good shape. Every place where neighborhoods are in decline share the same feature, housing built to the property line with no setbacks. Just as the YIMBYs preach. It’s ironic that they claim to be centered on economics.

[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:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

I bought on Capitol Hill, and we have rowhouses with setbacks, porches, yards, etc. it’s what makes the neighborhood so nice.

Exactly. And would you believe that YIMBY urbanists think those things (setbacks, yards, etc) are bad?

Every neighborhood in Baltimore that has rowhouses like Capitol Hill, front setbacks/porches, is in good shape. Every place where neighborhoods are in decline share the same feature, housing built to the property line with no setbacks. Just as the YIMBYs preach. It’s ironic that they claim to be centered on economics.

YIYBYs (Yes, in your backyard) want density and yet most nearly all of the bigger apartment and commercial buildings are built with setbacks, some substantial, in less-dense areas like Ward 3. But that’s not acceptable to the YIYBYs. They want dense and talk to the sidewalk line (anything else they claim is “unbuilt housing” and mixed use), which means we’ve started to see these dark canyon buildings appear, which seem totally ugly and out of place in the surrounding context. More density is fine, but why sacrifice green borders and beauty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember that McLean Gardens was built as workforce housing and became “missing middle.” Now Smart Growth wants it razed for dense luxury mixed use.

LOL they are calling for McLean Gardens to be seized via eminent domain? It will never happen. Too many lawyers live there and are on the condo board!

That said, I'd love to see a tram line run down Wisconsin Ave into the heart of business district in DC.