Missing Middle travesty in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Over the past decade, the median home price has increased by 134 percent in Phoenix, 133 percent in Miami, 129 percent in Atlanta, and 99 percent in Dallas. (Over that same stretch, prices in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have increased by about 75 percent, 76 percent, and 97 percent, respectively)."

YIMBYs mindlessly cite Sun Belt cities as shining examples of how eased zoning rules lead to building more lead to lower prices. But it's not happening. Instead, we're getting higher housing prices along with Earth-killing sprawl in those places.

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/06/zoning-sun-belt-housing-shortage/683352/

What the article actually concludes:

“But the real answer is that San Francisco and New York weren’t unique—they were just early. Eventually, no matter where you are, the forces of NIMBYism catch up to you.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

"smart density" is what causes housing prices to go to the moon.

[Anonymous]

The most expensive cities in this country are also the most densely populated ones. No one is crying about housing prices in Toledo, Ohio. Doesn't seem like a coincidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

"smart density" is what causes housing prices to go to the moon.

Smart density is an industry term of art. Density that is supported by adequate infrastructures (utilities, roads, schools, EMTs, police support, etc). Not sure how adequate infrastructures is a negative. Density for density sake, without a full smart density approach is awful. Not sure you understand what smart density actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Over the past decade, the median home price has increased by 134 percent in Phoenix, 133 percent in Miami, 129 percent in Atlanta, and 99 percent in Dallas. (Over that same stretch, prices in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have increased by about 75 percent, 76 percent, and 97 percent, respectively)."

YIMBYs mindlessly cite Sun Belt cities as shining examples of how eased zoning rules lead to building more lead to lower prices. But it's not happening. Instead, we're getting higher housing prices along with Earth-killing sprawl in those places.

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/06/zoning-sun-belt-housing-shortage/683352/

What the article actually concludes:

“But the real answer is that San Francisco and New York weren’t unique—they were just early. Eventually, no matter where you are, the forces of NIMBYism catch up to you.”

Actually, it concludes that those Sun Belt cities are running out of room to sprawl. It's funny that YIMBYs never mention the sprawl involved in their red-state utopias (all of which have truly horrid public transportation, so you have people driving to their no-longer-cheap McMansions 45 miles outside the city center).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

"smart density" is what causes housing prices to go to the moon.

Smart density is an industry term of art. Density that is supported by adequate infrastructures (utilities, roads, schools, EMTs, police support, etc). Not sure how adequate infrastructures is a negative. Density for density sake, without a full smart density approach is awful. Not sure you understand what smart density actually is.

It's also a dumb term. But advocates should acknowledge their policy drives housing prices up, not down. It may not be intended, but it is unavoidable, absent the government stepping in and helping pay people's rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

Yes I’m sure you truly care about the poor people of Arlington County. give me a break. we all know you are posting on the schools board about how horrible all the FARMS and ESOL kids are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Over the past decade, the median home price has increased by 134 percent in Phoenix, 133 percent in Miami, 129 percent in Atlanta, and 99 percent in Dallas. (Over that same stretch, prices in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have increased by about 75 percent, 76 percent, and 97 percent, respectively)."

YIMBYs mindlessly cite Sun Belt cities as shining examples of how eased zoning rules lead to building more lead to lower prices. But it's not happening. Instead, we're getting higher housing prices along with Earth-killing sprawl in those places.

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/06/zoning-sun-belt-housing-shortage/683352/

What the article actually concludes:

“But the real answer is that San Francisco and New York weren’t unique—they were just early. Eventually, no matter where you are, the forces of NIMBYism catch up to you.”

Actually, it concludes that those Sun Belt cities are running out of room to sprawl. It's funny that YIMBYs never mention the sprawl involved in their red-state utopias (all of which have truly horrid public transportation, so you have people driving to their no-longer-cheap McMansions 45 miles outside the city center).

It concludes that … wait for it … they need to change zoning regs to allow for higher density development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive cities in this country are also the most densely populated ones. No one is crying about housing prices in Toledo, Ohio. Doesn't seem like a coincidence.

And they are the ones with restrictions that don’t allow enough housing to be built to meet demand. Again - supply, demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you don’t understand that supply going up lowers prices, it’s probably time to sit down. Wah wah it’s only modestly, you cry. Yeah but you dont even want that. Because you dont want supply to go up because it runs counter to your economic incentives.

This is an economic theory/principle and just like many things in life, what should happen in theory does not always happen in reality. For this particular area, increasing supply has not historically and is not currently lowering prices. So you can shout that supply and demand always have an inverse relationship, but in this case you are wrong and instead of finding other solutions and pivoting you're digging in your heels. You won't ultimately get what you want and this is now becoming bad policy.

You’re going to have to show your work, buddy. But sure, if we say refuse to build apartments on the RFK lot, then rent on the (nonexistent) RFK apartments will be much lower.

I have to show my work? What does that even mean? I work in the industry. I would love for there to be more housing, especially affordable housing and smart development. I have helped finance and build many successful projects in the DMV since the 90s. Supply in housing in the Washington, DC metro area (as defined by HUD) has not lowered prices in the last 30 years. Do your homework instead of trying to come up with what you consider are witty retorts.

lol you work in the industry? As an economist?

the fact that supply went up and prices went up doesn’t mean increasing supply doesn’t decrease prices. I’ll let you figure out why.

Sometimes increasing supply leads to dramatically higher prices. Everyone knew this before we decided to rename gentrification as "increasing density"

Most transparent rebrand ever and the YIMBYs fell for it.

Only if you’re a typically dishonest and low-IQ NIMBY who believes your dumbest lines are brilliant.

gentrification means people moving to a neighborhood that previously had less demand, thereby sharply raising the housing costs. IOW textbook supply and demand. It is true that some people fight the development of new buildings in the name of “gentrification” but they are using the term incorrectly. NIMBYs have exploited working class communities to do so (see Kingman Park).

YIMBY/ Arlington homeowner not worried about pushing out locals via raising home prices with increased density and fighting about the definition of gentrification is so hilarious. You literally do not care about the lower income people in certain neighborhoods, that were considered "less desirable" (to who? you? to people who want $1.5+ million dollar missing middle housing?), and already lived there because it was affordable, who had already built a community, and now are getting pushed out because YIMBY told them "we know better, and this is best". The fact that you openly don't care, and think you're doing these people a favor is mind blowing.

Smart density is great. But your attitude is awful and needs to be checked.

Yes I’m sure you truly care about the poor people of Arlington County. give me a break. we all know you are posting on the schools board about how horrible all the FARMS and ESOL kids are.

Huh? Now I know you're just a rage baiter/troll. Lame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive cities in this country are also the most densely populated ones. No one is crying about housing prices in Toledo, Ohio. Doesn't seem like a coincidence.

And they are the ones with restrictions that don’t allow enough housing to be built to meet demand. Again - supply, demand.

Who says we need to meet the demand? There's five million people in the suburbs. You could pave over the Mall and replace it with 100 story condos and there would still be complaints there isn't enough housing.

[Anonymous]

There are definitely some trolls on this thread. Some who are totally clueless about Arlington and like to pretend like they are some kind of expert.


MM will offer more units in the mid-size/mid-price market.

It won’t significantly increase or decrease prices on existing homes because there just won’t be that many of them.

Home values will continue to go up - with or without MM - because ARL is a desirable area.

[Anonymous]

hahahahahaha, appeals court realized they f'ed up and reversed their own decision. what a cluster. MM illegal once again, thank goodness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hahahahahaha, appeals court realized they f'ed up and reversed their own decision. what a cluster. MM illegal once again, thank goodness

Great news. It would be nice if the news articles linked to the actual opinion because it's really hard to understand the legal issues from the news coverage. (Does anyone have a link to the opinion?)