The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.

Last time I checked, $1mil condo is cheaper than a $3mil rowhouse. Check my math?

Your math is correct. I can't afford either one, so for me, it doesn't matter.

Maybe we should be working towards having fewer people and not towards cramming people together. It's bad for our health.

Study after study proves that sprawl and SFHs contribute more pollution and waste. Sorry :/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.

Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.

Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

An alternate explanation is that politically, it's a lot easier to upzone than to implement a land value tax, so that's what most people spend their time talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

Nobody was claiming that. However, there is a lot of land that is zoned for exclusively single-family-detached.

It's kind of funny for a person to complain about whataboutism while also complaining that urbanists aren't complaining about developers who build projects that are smaller than the maximum allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I was thinking the same thing about you. Nobody will explain the economics that justifies getting rid of current zoning rules. It’s got to be something a little more detailed with a few hypothetical examples. You are asking for a major shift in policy. What will it accomplish in a market in DC where an empty lot costs $1 million’ ?. It’s got to be a little more than ‘I want to live in ward three and I can’t afford to.’

DP...because the current zoning regime, in place since the early 20th century, doesn't work. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.

Last time I checked, $1mil condo is cheaper than a $3mil rowhouse. Check my math?

Your math is correct. I can't afford either one, so for me, it doesn't matter.

Maybe we should be working towards having fewer people and not towards cramming people together. It's bad for our health.

Ok, are you volunteering?

[Anonymous]

OP here.

I hardly expected this thread to get the traction that it has, but tis the interwebz. I haven't read through all of the comments and won't. I was expressing my frustration over the social media behavior of certain sect of people. I guess the only thing I'll say is that if you really want to get what you so much desire, trolling and harassing people on neighborhood chat rooms, historical societies and all social media is not the best way to achieve your aims.

Then again, the way this thread has taken off illustrates that I have just wasted my and other people's time since people are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs. There's no discussion. Only screaming.

We are so screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I hardly expected this thread to get the traction that it has, but tis the interwebz. I haven't read through all of the comments and won't. I was expressing my frustration over the social media behavior of certain sect of people. I guess the only thing I'll say is that if you really want to get what you so much desire, trolling and harassing people on neighborhood chat rooms, historical societies and all social media is not the best way to achieve your aims.

Then again, the way this thread has taken off illustrates that I have just wasted my and other people's time since people are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs. There's no discussion. Only screaming.

We are so screwed.

Indeed, OP. Also, internet message boards, such as the one you posted this thread on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I hardly expected this thread to get the traction that it has, but tis the interwebz. I haven't read through all of the comments and won't. I was expressing my frustration over the social media behavior of certain sect of people. I guess the only thing I'll say is that if you really want to get what you so much desire, trolling and harassing people on neighborhood chat rooms, historical societies and all social media is not the best way to achieve your aims.

Then again, the way this thread has taken off illustrates that I have just wasted my and other people's time since people are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs. There's no discussion. Only screaming.

We are so screwed.

Have you bothered reading your own thread? Here's a recap:

OP: Urbanists are vile trolls who berate people for having opinions other than their own!
Everyone else: I'm not sure that's true, do you have any examples?
OP: Here are some Twitter exchanges
Everyone else: That doesn't illustrate any urbanists being vile trolls who berate people for having opinions other than their own
NIMBY: Here's a video that explains why Urbanists are suffering from mass psychosis!
Everyone else: ...
NIMBY: Urbanists are lonely losers who blog from their mom's basement!!
Everyone else: ...
NIMBY: Okay, but no one has ever explained how expensive duplexes can make housing more affordable, it just doesn't make sense!
Everyone else: Well, here are a few hypothetical examples
NIMBY: Urbanists only have hypotheticals, there has to be something more than just "I want to live in Ward 3 but I can't afford to!"
Everyone else: Well, no one ever said that, but here are some academic articles that show that increased density and loosening land use restrictions lower housing prices or slow the increase of housing prices
NIMBY: I think there should be fewer people!

There's one other person having a good-faith disagreement in this thread, and even they support upzoning, they just think Urbanists should be using different policy levers. They're engaging with arguments and having a productive conversation, even if there are still some disagreements.

I do agree with you that there's been some screaming on this thread, but it's only coming from one side, and it isn't the supposed big mean scary urbanists.

[Anonymous]

I always thought urbanists weren't that interested in developing more housing to reduce costs, but of stopping development to have more green space, thus increasing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.

Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

An alternate explanation is that politically, it's a lot easier to upzone than to implement a land value tax, so that's what most people spend their time talking about.

We have a land value tax (at least many of us do). We don’t have upzoning. I’m not sure the argument holds. The tax could certainly be tailored so it only impacted those most responsible for underutilization (set it on plan extensions, amendments to reduce density, and plans that underutilize, for example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

Nobody was claiming that. However, there is a lot of land that is zoned for exclusively single-family-detached.

It's kind of funny for a person to complain about whataboutism while also complaining that urbanists aren't complaining about developers who build projects that are smaller than the maximum allowed.

There’s a difference between not engaging an argument in good faith by misstating the argument and changing the subject (what you were doing) and pointing out that the policy recommendation (in this case upzoning alone) is inadequate to fulfill the stated policy goal (more density).

[Anonymous]

Nobody has said that upzoning alone will solve all problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.

Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

An alternate explanation is that politically, it's a lot easier to upzone than to implement a land value tax, so that's what most people spend their time talking about.

We have a land value tax (at least many of us do). We don’t have upzoning. I’m not sure the argument holds. The tax could certainly be tailored so it only impacted those most responsible for underutilization (set it on plan extensions, amendments to reduce density, and plans that underutilize, for example).

DC does not have a land value tax. It taxes both land and building improvements.

[Anonymous]

Oh hey, a Georgist is yelling at urbanists.