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:

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?

What drives me the most crazy is that they point to European cities as a model. Yet if you go to Europe, you find that anything built within the last 100 years has a setback of at least a few meters.

At its core, these people are just an outshoot idiot libertarianism which is a worse ideological failure than communism in terms of political theories.

[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.

maximalize profits, huh

[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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

[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:

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?

DP. It's the height restrictions that are the issue. If you let people build up, then you could also require more setbacks/green space.

[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.

maximalize profits, huh

So “the market” is not price signals? That’s what you’re saying?

[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:

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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

[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:

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.

Polls show that DC residents strongly favor retaining the Height Act. 9 or 10 stories on a major avenue outside of downtown with street setbacks is fine. What is to be avoided is the dark canyon effect, which sadly has been the situation on Wisconsin Ave. in certain places. Massachusetts Ave and Connecticut to an extent are examples of density with attractive setbacks.

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?

DP. It's the height restrictions that are the issue. If you let people build up, then you could also require more setbacks/green space.

[Anonymous]

Building taller to provide more ground level green space is considered bad by the urbanists crowd. They derisively call it “tower in the park”.

[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:

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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

[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:

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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

And I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to Baltimore and you are also too young to remember when crime was rampant and quite scary around Logan Circle. It’s amazing what good housing stock can do for a neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like we need to remove the artificial constraints then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Building taller to provide more ground level green space is considered bad by the urbanists crowd. They derisively call it “tower in the park”.

I mean, yeah, we can all picture disconnected buildings surrounded by weird green space nobody uses. That doesn't mean that setbacks are the key to urban success, obviously. I think of cities like SF and Philly that combine no-setbacks with lots of attractive public space.

[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:

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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

And I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to Baltimore and you are also too young to remember when crime was rampant and quite scary around Logan Circle. It’s amazing what good housing stock can do for a neighborhood.

Ok, I assume you're running off to buy a SFH in Ward 8?

[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:

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.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

And I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to Baltimore and you are also too young to remember when crime was rampant and quite scary around Logan Circle. It’s amazing what good housing stock can do for a neighborhood.

Ok, I assume you're running off to buy a SFH in Ward 8?

And now you are showing yourself to be what it’s clear that you are: racist. Plenty of people are buying EOTR where there is good housing stock. Notably they are not buying where there is not good housing stock.

There are some absolute gems of high quality housing stock EOTR that has been renovated and getting renovated and snatched up for good money.
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1341-W-St-SE-20020/home/10158771

Keep being a racist, it looks like it’s workIng out well for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Building taller to provide more ground level green space is considered bad by the urbanists crowd. They derisively call it “tower in the park”.

I mean, yeah, we can all picture disconnected buildings surrounded by weird green space nobody uses. That doesn't mean that setbacks are the key to urban success, obviously. I think of cities like SF and Philly that combine no-setbacks with lots of attractive public space.

It’s true; these are some winning cities. No ATVs shootings or homeless. Ditto London and knife crime on the “estates”