We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it have to be “white entitlement?” We are pretty multicultural when it comes
To entitlement in the DMV.

Because middle class Black people, like me, have spent our entire lives doing what we can to be successful because that is what has been demanded of us. Michelle Obama once called Barak a "hustler" and all Black people need to hustle somewhat to get ahead because, and the data is clear, Black people born into wealthy families are less likely to maintain their economic status into adulthood than equivalent whites.

Black people in this city have spent decades begging this city to help them more, only to be told that nothing can be done. In the meantime, a whole generation of entitled white brats comes along and decides that they don't need to work for anything. They can just have whatever they want and it is disturbing to me that in some ways they are getting it. Who do you think is benefitting from these "inclusive" development units?

Meanwhile Black people keep getting left behind but these entitled white people sure love to us as props for their games. "Upzoning" Cleveland Park is not going to do anything for any person of color in this city. In fact, it probably hurts Black people on net because it promotes private development and investment $ in already rich neighborhoods. What I have learned is that the city won't invest in your neighborhood until some white people move in. It looks like white people made it to the Anacostia River and decided that they had enough.

So beyond not upzoning Cleveland Park, what should be done? Not saying I disagree, because it’s really just going to provide more options to those on the cusp of affording that area vs. those that actually need more options, but I dont know that the status quo is the answer either.

Upzoning in Ward 3 will do nothing more than drive those people out of the city. The better approach is to make the less desirable areas more desirable. DC Govt certainly can fund infrastructure, public parks, rec centers, bridges, libraries, schools in other parts of DC that would those parts more attractive. DC has done some of this, particularly with some libraries, schools, and Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge. But much more can be done of course. Find commercial property that can be converted to residential, whether condos or townhouses. This entire discussion seems to focus on what happens in Ward 3. The parts of the City that have natural beauty care not in Ward 3. Look at the River. Plenty of opportunity to turn DC into a River city.

It's very telling that whenever people say they're just so concerned that upzoning rich SFH areas won't help anything, the solution is always to allow upzoning somewhere else far away instead, not in addition to. It's never "upzone everywhere across the board and let property owners, developers, and buyers decide," it's always "keep that upzoning and development with the filthy poors where it belongs."

It's even more telling when those people straight up lie to further that NIMBY agenda:

The parts of the City that have natural beauty care not in Ward 3. Look at the River. Plenty of opportunity to turn DC into a River city.

You don't think the Ward that borders Rock Creek Park has natural beauty? Glover Archbold Park? Battery Kemble? Take a look at this heat map and tell me which Ward you think has the most tree cover: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/detailed-maps-urban-heat-island-effects-washington-dc-and-baltimore

Look at the river? You mean the Potomac River which borders Ward 3? What about the C&O Canal which is a full on National Park inside Ward 3's borders?

Nice attempt at misdirection, but nobody is buying your "aww shucks, you don't want this gross old candy bar, wouldn't you much rather have some nice crisp green broccoli" routine.

[Anonymous]

So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

But there are houses available for them elsewhere- they won’t be competing with the condo dwellers for the SFH in PG, for instance.

Oh i see. So the black people who were pushed out of Navy Yard to make way for white people can go live somewhere else? That's not in DC? That's what you're saying? Cool, cool. Not racist at all.

No, it benefits everyone because the people who live in the condos get pulled out of the pool of people looking for housing, so you’re not competing with as many people now as you were before. Make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

This doesn’t make sense unless the economy in the region tanks. People keep moving into the DC area so new homes have to go somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

The article also says there were fewer than 500 residents in the mid-2000s, now there are 5,000. The condos and apts replaced warehouses, as the other posted said, not SFHs. And even if there were SFHs they would not be cheap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

This argument seems a little disingenuous to me.

The push to "increase density" is driving up housing prices, and pushing black and brown people out, across the city -- everywhere but Ward 3. You seem to think that's okay so long as you also favor increasing density in Ward 3. But everyone knows Ward 3 is never going to increase density to any appreciable extent, regardless of what you or say or do. So the bottom line result is that "increasing density," while pretending to help people, is actually hurting them everywhere in the city except in Ward 3, where the increasing density cause is DOA.

But, for the sake of argument, if they did increase density in Ward 3, then yes you'd see sky-high prices. That's because schools EOTP mostly suck. People will pay anything to get their kids into middle and high schools in Ward 3, so if new condos go on the market, you'll see 600-square foot condos going for $1 million. If a 600 square foot condo goes for $1 million, the guy next door in the 2,000 square foot house will think his house is suddenly worth *at least* triple that, if only based on the price per square foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

+1000 for all of us who will join in your opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

This argument seems a little disingenuous to me.

The push to "increase density" is driving up housing prices, and pushing black and brown people out, across the city -- everywhere but Ward 3. You seem to think that's okay so long as you also favor increasing density in Ward 3. But everyone knows Ward 3 is never going to increase density to any appreciable extent, regardless of what you or say or do. So the bottom line result is that "increasing density," while pretending to help people, is actually hurting them everywhere in the city except in Ward 3, where the increasing density cause is DOA.

But, for the sake of argument, if they did increase density in Ward 3, then yes you'd see sky-high prices. That's because schools EOTP mostly suck. People will pay anything to get their kids into middle and high schools in Ward 3, so if new condos go on the market, you'll see 600-square foot condos going for $1 million. If a 600 square foot condo goes for $1 million, the guy next door in the 2,000 square foot house will think his house is suddenly worth *at least* triple that, if only based on the price per square foot.

As it happens, I do not favor increasing density in neighborhoods where that would lead to displacement, I only favor it in neighborhoods like mine, where you could easily change the zoning and fit a lot more people in, and where we're already close to good public transit. The fact that the cause appears to be DOA is a political problem, not an iron law; the main thing to do about is to just ignore the people up here who oppose it and push through a plan regardless. Maybe you wouldn't get reelected, or maybe you would.

But you will not see 600-square-foot condos going for $1 million suddenly if you built them here, just because of the relatively desirability of the schools -- if that were the case, single-family houses in Tenleytown would already be selling for more than they are. There's a limit to how much people are going to pay just to get into DCPS schools that they think are better than other DCPS alternatives. It would make more sense for most of the hypothetical buyers of these condos to pay $1.3 million for a house in Bethesda than to pay $1 million for a small condo in D.C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

My home purchase was also by far the largest investment I've ever made. And while you and I may both have the legal right to oppose changes to existing zoning regulations, I don't think we'd have any moral ground to stand on in doing so just to avoid having more people live nearby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.