City of Alexandria rolls out timeline for massive housing reform project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

You don't say.

I do. Notice how council says absolutely nothing about this? Notice how Justin completely avoids any discussion about the vacant housing stock? Odd, huh?

Seems if you were really worried about there not being enough housing available, you'd somehow manage to eventually discuss the 15 story, half empty apartment buildings sitting all over the city.

15-story half-empty apartment buildings all over the city! Oh my!

And how do you know that they're at 50% capacity?

Do you have a point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

They will simultaneously have no impact on the housing market and yet also a huge impact on schools and roads. Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

They will simultaneously have no impact on the housing market and yet also a huge impact on schools and roads. Obviously.

This explanation, and the explanation on the other thread about the bike lobby being behind the opposition to bus lanes, are the two best things I have ever read on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

[Anonymous]

If you listen carefully you can hear all he YIYBYs stomping their feet that the city didn't agree to line every inch of Del Ray with builder grade, garbage, 7 story boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

The goal isn't to build $800K duplexes, the goal is to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for those who can't afford to drop $800K on a duplex. Do you think my cleaning ladies are going to be lining up to buy an $800K duplex? Nope. It'll go to some white family and beat goes on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

The goal isn't to build $800K duplexes, the goal is to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for those who can't afford to drop $800K on a duplex. Do you think my cleaning ladies are going to be lining up to buy an $800K duplex? Nope. It'll go to some white family and beat goes on...

Replacing one $1 million unit with two $800,000 units would help accomplish that goal.

[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:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

The goal isn't to build $800K duplexes, the goal is to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for those who can't afford to drop $800K on a duplex. Do you think my cleaning ladies are going to be lining up to buy an $800K duplex? Nope. It'll go to some white family and beat goes on...

Replacing one $1 million unit with two $800,000 units would help accomplish that goal.

So we're doing all of this to let UMC folks have more options in the City? That doesn't seem very equitable or accessible at all.

I just don't get this City and its leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

There is no housing crisis. It's manufactured problem for political goals.

The west end is full of dense, high rise buildings that are at 50% capacity. How anyone can scream crisis when they are literally hundreds and hundreds of vacant units right now is all the proof you need that this isn't about housing.

You don't say.

I do. Notice how council says absolutely nothing about this? Notice how Justin completely avoids any discussion about the vacant housing stock? Odd, huh?

Seems if you were really worried about there not being enough housing available, you'd somehow manage to eventually discuss the 15 story, half empty apartment buildings sitting all over the city.

100000% how can you ignore this for so long and keep approving more density????

Have you send him an email to discuss this or called his office? I'm being serious maybe you should, maybe he should be asked about this directly.

[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:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

The goal isn't to build $800K duplexes, the goal is to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for those who can't afford to drop $800K on a duplex. Do you think my cleaning ladies are going to be lining up to buy an $800K duplex? Nope. It'll go to some white family and beat goes on...

Replacing one $1 million unit with two $800,000 units would help accomplish that goal.

So we're doing all of this to let UMC folks have more options in the City? That doesn't seem very equitable or accessible at all.

I just don't get this City and its leadership.

There is only one housing market. Affluent folks and poor folks don't have separate, walled-off, totally-don't-affect-each-other housing markets. Everyone is dealing with the same housing market.

[Anonymous]

I really think there are a ton of people posting that haven't stepped foot into the west end. Please come on over to the west end to see all these almost vacant eye sores CC has allowed to be built without the need in place. See for yourself what the westenders are living with these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

Also it just delivered in 2022 so the building is still leasing up while dealing with rolling leases.
It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

[Anonymous]

*Also it just delivered in 2022 so the building is still leasing up while dealing with rolling leases.*