Missing middle- Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

This is 100% true and on point. Especially the bolded part. People who are ok with apartment living already have tons of options and if prices are still too high they won't be brought down by adding a few low rise apartment units. What people want is a semblance of a home on a residential street with a private garage and a patio. THs give you that home feel without the price of an SFH. It's why they are popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't move to a SFH within close distance to a 4-plex or 6-plex. If I wanted density, I wouldn't be choosing a SFH.

Aren't there already mixed housing areas in Arlington? The ones that are the most expensive and have most amenities still have some SFHs, but also have highrises nearby and definitely townhomes and smaller multifamilies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't move to a SFH within close distance to a 4-plex or 6-plex. If I wanted density, I wouldn't be choosing a SFH.

As someone who lives in Ashton Heights, we already have missing middle housing in parts of the neighborhood — particularly the blocks closer to Clarendon — and people are building new $3 million + houses and consistently buying homes in the $1.5 - 2.5 million right near these Multifamily building with 4-10 units. The same thing is happening in Lyon Park and Lyon Village. Honestly my guess is having to spend $1.25 - 1.5 million for a lot in these neighborhoods is going to lead to high end condos and rentals built in those new 6 plexes. Right now there are a number of terrible single family home rentals with loud 20 something’s partying and being very loud. My guess is the new neighbors “fit” in the neighborhood more and the end result is people will be happier. All of this is much ado about nothing. And to the poster that said people don’t move to Arlington for an urban experience, give me a break! Nearly 3/4 of our residents already live in Multifamily housing.

This. You may not want to live near a multiplex, but plenty of people don’t mind, and they are paying millions. We live next door to a world class city. The 20 somethings are probably about to be priced out from those group houses…

No offense, but you need to think about this more. Look at the two neighborhoods you listed...do they have a common denominator that you won't find in other areas of Arlington previously zoned exclusively for SFH? To point out the obvious: proximity to the Metro. Clarendon and Ballston are thriving areas with wonderful amenities nearby that simply won't be replicated across the county. Indeed, they're not even being replicated in other metro-adjacent neighborhoods.

Additionally, when you're talking about new builds or existing homes going for millions in these neighborhoods, how close are they to multi-family dwellings? Are we talking about homes that are on the same block? Right next door to multi-dwelling units? I think it's fairly obvious that isn't the case even if homes are selling in the same broader neighborhood for millions. Which, again, is not to say those homes will not appreciate in value. They will...but not at the same rate as homes removed from multi-dwelling units.

The point being this: it's completely fine to support MMH if you believe the pros outweigh the cons. But, can we stop pretending that the cons don't exist? Someone will absolutely lose if multi-dwelling units spread in non-metro adjacent neighborhoods across Arlington. It will almost certainly be existing SFH owners with units right next to new multi-family dwellings. If, from your perspective, the loss to the SFH owner is outweighed by the benefit of denser housing so be it. Let's just be honest in the assessment.

My problem with MMH isn't the potential impact on SFH owners in Arlington (of which, I am one). It's that no thought is being given to why additional density is desirable in Arlington in the first place let alone the potential impact on community services, infrastructure, and so forth. Additionally, if we are going to have greater density, I want a housing program that prioritizes current Arlington residents stay in place (e.g. help Arlington renters become Arlington homeowners) with a focus on lower-income residents. Multi-dwelling units, owned by a housing trust established by Arlington County, with first-time homebuyer assistance for Arlington residents that have lived in Arlington for 5+ years would be fantastic. If Arlington County doesn't have that authority...why isn't it fighting tooth and nail for it from the state government?

As it stands, Arlington's MMH program is a giveaway to developers that will achieve greater density without greater socio-economic diversity or even greater homeownership in Arlington. The County's answer to everything is "the market" will determine what happens...and this coming from Democrats that otherwise should know that the "market" will put profits over people every single time. As a Democrat, that alone is infuriating. Developers will tear down SFH and then replace them with 4-6plexes that will either be rented out at market rate or sold for more money than the average Arlingtonian can reasonably afford.

Here are a couple examples. First one backs to a Multifamily building and it sold above asking very quickly:

https://www.zillow.com/ho...e=txtshare

Second one is 807 N Jackson. This lot sold for $1.3 million and the beautiful modern home, I’d guess between 6-7,000 sq ft must have been at least $2 million or more to build. It is next door three multi-family buildings.

Also, most of the permits submitted for missing middle housing construction were in neighborhoods like mine and others along the metro corridor. I think there is less of a demand for $900,000 condos in your neighborhood so you should be alright.

One other point: you can’t both be worried about people being priced out of homes, i.e. saying homes that Arlingtonians can reasonably afford and be concerned about a potential hit to your property value. The most likely outcome of MMH is that it increases the price of single family homes, because land value increases even more than it already has. If you’d like to look at comparable places that have long had a mix of single family homes and MMH I would point you to Santa Monica and Cambridge. Both have incredibly expensive real estate and people that live in $5 million single family homes next to Multifamily houses. We live next door to the nations Capitol. Seems reasonable people would pay a lot to be here.

Here’s what I’ve witnessed in places similar to arlington in spirit that is a haven for MMH, coconut grove Florida. The most expensive housing market in the country right now. My mother live in a 7-plex there. Her complex are all retirees who moved there for the village atmosphere and amenities. 20 somethings cannot afford those MMHs. Single family homes closer to the center of the village are outrageously expensive, the homes further away but are close enough, like pinecrest area for example are less desirable to the young and old alike, but still expensive. As far as arlington is concerned, you can already see a demographic change happening in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. Lots of empty nester in expensive condos wanting to be in close proximity to young professionals for the vibrancy. Done right, I suspect MMH are going to attract a lot of those empty nesters as well who wants the village amenities in arlington but don’t want to live in a high rise. That’s what we did. We wanted to be close to the corridor but didn’t want to live in a high rise. We bought a 1.5 mil TH 6 years ago even though we could have easily afford a 2 mil for a sfh. However, we didn’t want the yard work and be too far away from the village center. All of our neighbors in the 20 unit complex are empty nesters except two 30 somethings foreigners. Resales are from 1.6-1.8 so far. Neighbors professions are generals, tech, contractors, journalists, diplomats, young professional athletes. I just don’t see MMH as threat the way some do, the land is too expensive.

this applies to places that already have desirable amenities and safety and well maintained nice urban village looking streets or will acquire it as a result of people with money moving in. Former is a guarantee your values will go up, but has more expensive price point of entry to start with (which is what you did). Latter is not always going to happen. Could be that some multifamily comes into a residential SFH neighborhood, but not enough to turn it into a charming village rich with amenities. Many areas are just too residential and not walkable. In that case you just get local pockets making multifamily simply discounted housing and accommodating those looking for bargain housing, vs. affluent empty nesters and yuppies paying top dollar, hiking prices up and supporting thriving local business.
I think this is what some people here worry about when they talk about MM messing up with their property values, giving slummier look to their neighborhoods, etc. It's not an invalid concern depending on the area.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

Not Danville, Daniel.

https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/EHO/Tracker

There is one on Daniel but the one we just filed is on Danville.

The proposed 6 plex on N Daniel is for a 6000 SF lot but the county’s webpage says the following:

Lots not meeting these minimum dimensional standards can be developed with EHO project if the lot is nonconforming, per ACZO §16.1.1 Nonconforming Lots. EHO development on nonconforming lots is limited to no more than four (4) dwelling units unless the lot is 7,000 sq. ft. or more.


What am I missing? Doesn’t the lot have to be 7000 SF for a 6 plex? Any builders or realtors have the answer to this question?

I think I’m about to answer my own question: is it a conforming lot bc it’s zoned R-5 and has 6000 SF?

But if it were zoned R-6 and had 5500 SF, would it be non-conforming and limited to a 4 plex?

TIA!

For the sake of completeness there is a special rule for R-5 lots that requires a minimum of 6000 sq ft for 5-6 plexes. So as a practical matter 6k square ft is the minimum for 5+ units.

Thank you so much. Since we have some experts, I was curious about something else. It may be too soon to know this, but do you think the plexes will be like the boxy modern houses with flat top roofs, or the quaint examples we saw from the county materials? I don’t see that it matters since people can build SFHs in whatever style they want, but I was curious if the boxier styles get more square footage, and thus would be incentivized. Also are they cheaper to build? Are these custom plexes for each lot or existing plans that builders can buy based on lot size? Do investors care what they look like in case they want to sell the units at any point or does it matter to them?

If it matters, I’m not trying to get building advice, I’m nervous the developers are going to throw up junky buildings. I’m not so nervous about more neighbors.

I don't think renters care as much about aesthetics as owner occupants. The design I have seen for only one plex with six units looks somewhat like the 1960s garden style communities with a flat facade and small projecting balconies. The balcony doors provide the most fenestration as the other windows are small.

As someone surrounded by new builds, I am not exactly blown away by the aesthetic sensibilities of the owner occupants in my neighborhood.

What specifically don’t you like? Too tall? Too close to the property line? Just ugly?

Mainly ugly. I don't love the other stuff, but they're building by right, so the size part is just . . . how it's going to be.

But the shabby materials and the failure to consider how a building works on a site -- hello, your dining room windows and the way you raised your house mean passers-by are looking up your dinner guests' skirts -- mean that your house is crumbling already and no one will mourn except the landfills. It would be nice if people thought about functionality at all: Can you use your porch? You have a ton of storage, but is it where you need it? Could you learn how to choose and care for plants instead of ::waves hands:: all that?

I agree with your comment re: porches and landscaping. If people had deep usable porches and lush landscaped yards, it would make a huge difference. It’s always puzzling to see people spend so much money on a house and leave the yard so spartan.

Yard requires constant work, not one time expense unlike house finishes. Unless you are into gardening and enjoy it, it could become a burden more than joy and a money pit if you outsource.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

Not Danville, Daniel.

https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/EHO/Tracker

There is one on Daniel but the one we just filed is on Danville.

The proposed 6 plex on N Daniel is for a 6000 SF lot but the county’s webpage says the following:

Lots not meeting these minimum dimensional standards can be developed with EHO project if the lot is nonconforming, per ACZO §16.1.1 Nonconforming Lots. EHO development on nonconforming lots is limited to no more than four (4) dwelling units unless the lot is 7,000 sq. ft. or more.


What am I missing? Doesn’t the lot have to be 7000 SF for a 6 plex? Any builders or realtors have the answer to this question?

I think I’m about to answer my own question: is it a conforming lot bc it’s zoned R-5 and has 6000 SF?

But if it were zoned R-6 and had 5500 SF, would it be non-conforming and limited to a 4 plex?

TIA!

For the sake of completeness there is a special rule for R-5 lots that requires a minimum of 6000 sq ft for 5-6 plexes. So as a practical matter 6k square ft is the minimum for 5+ units.

Thank you so much. Since we have some experts, I was curious about something else. It may be too soon to know this, but do you think the plexes will be like the boxy modern houses with flat top roofs, or the quaint examples we saw from the county materials? I don’t see that it matters since people can build SFHs in whatever style they want, but I was curious if the boxier styles get more square footage, and thus would be incentivized. Also are they cheaper to build? Are these custom plexes for each lot or existing plans that builders can buy based on lot size? Do investors care what they look like in case they want to sell the units at any point or does it matter to them?

If it matters, I’m not trying to get building advice, I’m nervous the developers are going to throw up junky buildings. I’m not so nervous about more neighbors.

I don't think renters care as much about aesthetics as owner occupants. The design I have seen for only one plex with six units looks somewhat like the 1960s garden style communities with a flat facade and small projecting balconies. The balcony doors provide the most fenestration as the other windows are small.

As someone surrounded by new builds, I am not exactly blown away by the aesthetic sensibilities of the owner occupants in my neighborhood.

What specifically don’t you like? Too tall? Too close to the property line? Just ugly?

Mainly ugly. I don't love the other stuff, but they're building by right, so the size part is just . . . how it's going to be.

But the shabby materials and the failure to consider how a building works on a site -- hello, your dining room windows and the way you raised your house mean passers-by are looking up your dinner guests' skirts -- mean that your house is crumbling already and no one will mourn except the landfills. It would be nice if people thought about functionality at all: Can you use your porch? You have a ton of storage, but is it where you need it? Could you learn how to choose and care for plants instead of ::waves hands:: all that?

I agree with your comment re: porches and landscaping. If people had deep usable porches and lush landscaped yards, it would make a huge difference. It’s always puzzling to see people spend so much money on a house and leave the yard so spartan.

Yard requires constant work, not one time expense unlike house finishes. Unless you are into gardening and enjoy it, it could become a burden more than joy and a money pit if you outsource.

I hate to stereotype but the people with the big houses already ARE outsourcing their yard work. If you spend the money in the beginning on a good infrastructure (like trees or bushes that grow in a certain shape and need less pruning, native plants that don’t require any work but a cut down in the spring), it shouldn’t be much more expensive for those people. A giant house with a few small boxwood just looks odd to me.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

Not Danville, Daniel.

https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/EHO/Tracker

There is one on Daniel but the one we just filed is on Danville.

The proposed 6 plex on N Daniel is for a 6000 SF lot but the county’s webpage says the following:

Lots not meeting these minimum dimensional standards can be developed with EHO project if the lot is nonconforming, per ACZO §16.1.1 Nonconforming Lots. EHO development on nonconforming lots is limited to no more than four (4) dwelling units unless the lot is 7,000 sq. ft. or more.


What am I missing? Doesn’t the lot have to be 7000 SF for a 6 plex? Any builders or realtors have the answer to this question?

I think I’m about to answer my own question: is it a conforming lot bc it’s zoned R-5 and has 6000 SF?

But if it were zoned R-6 and had 5500 SF, would it be non-conforming and limited to a 4 plex?

TIA!

For the sake of completeness there is a special rule for R-5 lots that requires a minimum of 6000 sq ft for 5-6 plexes. So as a practical matter 6k square ft is the minimum for 5+ units.

Thank you so much. Since we have some experts, I was curious about something else. It may be too soon to know this, but do you think the plexes will be like the boxy modern houses with flat top roofs, or the quaint examples we saw from the county materials? I don’t see that it matters since people can build SFHs in whatever style they want, but I was curious if the boxier styles get more square footage, and thus would be incentivized. Also are they cheaper to build? Are these custom plexes for each lot or existing plans that builders can buy based on lot size? Do investors care what they look like in case they want to sell the units at any point or does it matter to them?

If it matters, I’m not trying to get building advice, I’m nervous the developers are going to throw up junky buildings. I’m not so nervous about more neighbors.

I don't think renters care as much about aesthetics as owner occupants. The design I have seen for only one plex with six units looks somewhat like the 1960s garden style communities with a flat facade and small projecting balconies. The balcony doors provide the most fenestration as the other windows are small.

As someone surrounded by new builds, I am not exactly blown away by the aesthetic sensibilities of the owner occupants in my neighborhood.

What specifically don’t you like? Too tall? Too close to the property line? Just ugly?

Mainly ugly. I don't love the other stuff, but they're building by right, so the size part is just . . . how it's going to be.

But the shabby materials and the failure to consider how a building works on a site -- hello, your dining room windows and the way you raised your house mean passers-by are looking up your dinner guests' skirts -- mean that your house is crumbling already and no one will mourn except the landfills. It would be nice if people thought about functionality at all: Can you use your porch? You have a ton of storage, but is it where you need it? Could you learn how to choose and care for plants instead of ::waves hands:: all that?

I agree with your comment re: porches and landscaping. If people had deep usable porches and lush landscaped yards, it would make a huge difference. It’s always puzzling to see people spend so much money on a house and leave the yard so spartan.

Yard requires constant work, not one time expense unlike house finishes. Unless you are into gardening and enjoy it, it could become a burden more than joy and a money pit if you outsource.

I hate to stereotype but the people with the big houses already ARE outsourcing their yard work. If you spend the money in the beginning on a good infrastructure (like trees or bushes that grow in a certain shape and need less pruning, native plants that don’t require any work but a cut down in the spring), it shouldn’t be much more expensive for those people. A giant house with a few small boxwood just looks odd to me.

^ also want to add when I say “spend the money”, I mean hire a professional to design you a low maintenance landscape plan. The plants themselves don’t have to be expensive.

I think a lot of people don’t care, and it’s more of a choice than a money thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

"city"
Where at? Residential Arlington parts are quite suburban and not walkable to anything more interesting than a strip mall if that.

Someone upthread already pointed out that the neighborhoods along the R-B corridor are walkable. Always have been. And many new things are coming all the time, especially now that the pandemic is over. You don’t even need a car in the driveway of your giant house except for shuttling kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there is a way to see pictures of what is actually being proposed on all these sites? I'm so curious. Also, do they get to move ahead now or is everything really on hold until after the lawsuit?

+1. And what are the builders actually looking for in a lot? Do you need a minimum lot size for a plex? Is there a specific type of lot that’s better for a TH? Will the THs be rentals or just the plexes? If you have a small lot, are you able to benefit from the MM zoning change or is it just for 6000 SF+?

I’m personally done discussing the policy; I’m curious what happens next. What are the guesses, especially if you’re a builder or realtor or other industry professional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

"city"
Where at? Residential Arlington parts are quite suburban and not walkable to anything more interesting than a strip mall if that.

I wouldn’t call it “city” but there are certainly many walkable residential neighborhoods in denser areas: along the orange and blue lines, parts of Washington Blvd, Columbia Pike, Langston Blvd, etc.

Builders are more likely to put up THs/MF near these areas. More demand there than a MF unit out in BFE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a house on 5041 25th Street S sold for $560k (4 beds 1 bath) to a developer who is going to tear it down and build 2 houses that probably cost a million each. Perfect example of pricing people out of Arlington - it’s going to be all renters and rich people. The proponents of MMH were so dishonest (or just really uninformed) - this was never going to help bring affordable housing or more housing for minorities - just more density.

The alternative was a builder buys it and builds a single 2.0 million house. Last time I checked 1.0 million is less than 2.0 million. It's adding more options in the middle.

No one ever said it was for affordable housing - you misunderstood them.

Well, the MM proponents were happy to have it misunderstood as "affordable housing" but plenty of people said it wouldn't be.

Looking at street view for that house/street, it actually seems like the kind of area where townhomes or a 4/6-plex would make sense. Very old, run down houses just off Route 7, behind a Taco Bell. Not a great location for a $2M house.

Literally no one said it was going to be affordable housing.

Many said it would be “affordable” housing but redefined “affordable” as the above poster did. A $1.5 million townhouse is more affordable than a $2.5 million single house.

Many also inferred it would be affordable because Arlington County did a miserable PR job in rolling out the plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a house on 5041 25th Street S sold for $560k (4 beds 1 bath) to a developer who is going to tear it down and build 2 houses that probably cost a million each. Perfect example of pricing people out of Arlington - it’s going to be all renters and rich people. The proponents of MMH were so dishonest (or just really uninformed) - this was never going to help bring affordable housing or more housing for minorities - just more density.

The alternative was a builder buys it and builds a single 2.0 million house. Last time I checked 1.0 million is less than 2.0 million. It's adding more options in the middle.

No one ever said it was for affordable housing - you misunderstood them.

Well, the MM proponents were happy to have it misunderstood as "affordable housing" but plenty of people said it wouldn't be.

Looking at street view for that house/street, it actually seems like the kind of area where townhomes or a 4/6-plex would make sense. Very old, run down houses just off Route 7, behind a Taco Bell. Not a great location for a $2M house.

Literally no one said it was going to be affordable housing.

Many said it would be “affordable” housing but redefined “affordable” as the above poster did. A $1.5 million townhouse is more affordable than a $2.5 million single house.

Many also inferred it would be affordable because Arlington County did a miserable PR job in rolling out the plan

“Many” were pushing a false narrative or were too lazy to actually read the proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a house on 5041 25th Street S sold for $560k (4 beds 1 bath) to a developer who is going to tear it down and build 2 houses that probably cost a million each. Perfect example of pricing people out of Arlington - it’s going to be all renters and rich people. The proponents of MMH were so dishonest (or just really uninformed) - this was never going to help bring affordable housing or more housing for minorities - just more density.

The alternative was a builder buys it and builds a single 2.0 million house. Last time I checked 1.0 million is less than 2.0 million. It's adding more options in the middle.

No one ever said it was for affordable housing - you misunderstood them.

Well, the MM proponents were happy to have it misunderstood as "affordable housing" but plenty of people said it wouldn't be.

Looking at street view for that house/street, it actually seems like the kind of area where townhomes or a 4/6-plex would make sense. Very old, run down houses just off Route 7, behind a Taco Bell. Not a great location for a $2M house.

Literally no one said it was going to be affordable housing.

The anti-MM claimed the pro-MM were saying that, then putting signs in their yards saying "It's not affordable" as though that were some kind of gotcha.

The people with those signs never worked to increase the supply of affordable housing. They just wanted to say that MM isn't. We know that, cranky haves.

Among the people with those signs are residents who worked for years to provide affordable housing in Arlington. They understood better than the proponents that the Missing Muddle name was a misnomer and was misunderstood by many

Few of the proponents ever served on any county affordable housing groups, volunteered for AHS, APAH, Langston Blvd Alliance or similar groups

Above all else, MM was a generational power shift between the boomers who carried on the traditions of the New Dealers who made Arlington a good place to live

Now it is in the hand of the next generation. Let them make it as they please.

[Anonymous]

I attended a economic development talk about the DMV and it's single family homes or similar that is holding our area back.

If you have even 800K to spend would you rather live in a converted condo in Arlington or house in Fairfax as a family? Right, not the condo. Affordability leaves a ton out of the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there is a way to see pictures of what is actually being proposed on all these sites? I'm so curious. Also, do they get to move ahead now or is everything really on hold until after the lawsuit?

+1. And what are the builders actually looking for in a lot? Do you need a minimum lot size for a plex? Is there a specific type of lot that’s better for a TH? Will the THs be rentals or just the plexes? If you have a small lot, are you able to benefit from the MM zoning change or is it just for 6000 SF+?

I’m personally done discussing the policy; I’m curious what happens next. What are the guesses, especially if you’re a builder or realtor or other industry professional?

They will build, the units won't be affordable and hopefully Arlington will change it's policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there is a way to see pictures of what is actually being proposed on all these sites? I'm so curious. Also, do they get to move ahead now or is everything really on hold until after the lawsuit?

+1. And what are the builders actually looking for in a lot? Do you need a minimum lot size for a plex? Is there a specific type of lot that’s better for a TH? Will the THs be rentals or just the plexes? If you have a small lot, are you able to benefit from the MM zoning change or is it just for 6000 SF+?

I’m personally done discussing the policy; I’m curious what happens next. What are the guesses, especially if you’re a builder or realtor or other industry professional?

They will build, the units won't be affordable and hopefully Arlington will change it's policies.

I don’t see them going back. Maybe they keep the maintain the permit cap in 5 years; maybe they increase or lift it. But they won’t end MMH. So the questions stand…