Overriding local zoning to allow multi-family units in suburban neighborhoods in VA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

There is no more room in the City Of Falls Church.

There is absolutely room in FC. Do you mean no more room for more detached SFHs?

Where is the room if you don't build up?

The school system is already grossly overcrowded.

Under this proposal houses that are torn down for mcmansions could be replaced by two smaller units instead - THs, or a duplex. Or you could add a unit to the lot (and ADU)

Of course FCC is building up as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Copying this from earlier in the thread.

The problem is the numbers.

There are approximately 120,000 housing units in Arlington County (there's 320,000 in DC). How many more do you think realistically can be added? Over the past decade, the number of housing units in Arlington has grown by 14 percent. Let's be very generous and say over the next decade it doubles that rate and grows by 28 percent, which would mean adding 33,000 units, which let's say could accommodate 100,000 people.

Most people would probably agree Arlington is a good place to live. The schools are good, crime is low, it's an easy commute, there's lot of things to do. The main problem is that it's expensive (for precisely all of those reasons).

You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

No, you wouldn't. Though you might run out of places to put single-family detached houses with yards.

We need to ban single-family homes. We should also ban three-bedroom condos, two-bedroom condos and one-bedroom condos. Only studios. I don't care if you have children. Everyone gets 450 square feet.

No one is proposing bannign SFHs. The proposal is to end zoning that only allows SFHs.

If there is zoning that requires large condos and bans 450 sq ft studios, that should be ended as well, I agree.

(btw why do NIMBYs always talk about condos when the majority of new multifamily housing is rentals?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

No one is proposing bannign SFHs. The proposal is to end zoning that only allows SFHs.

If there is zoning that requires large condos and bans 450 sq ft studios, that should be ended as well, I agree.

(btw why do NIMBYs always talk about condos when the majority of new multifamily housing is rentals?)

Because they don't know anybody who rents, and therefore rental housing does not exist in their minds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

Do you think they would be more affordable if their population densities were lower?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

Er, NYC has politics too. And zoning. And NIMBYs.

Its also got a huge concentration of jobs. Much bigger than DC. And its housing construction has NOT kept pace with job growth. Which has been said over and over, and the folks KEEP reciting the talking point "Well NYC IS dense and expensive". Zombie talking point that has been shown to be misleading again and again.

Is there a bot writing the NIMBY talking points?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

Philly and Chicago are also dense, and not so expensive. Austin and Silicon Valley are not so dense, but are very expensive. Hell Boulder Colorado is expensive.

Some might say that demand for housing (mostly driven by job growth) exceeding supply is what makes cities expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

Philly and Chicago are also dense, and not so expensive. Austin and Silicon Valley are not so dense, but are very expensive. Hell Boulder Colorado is expensive.

Some might say that demand for housing (mostly driven by job growth) exceeding supply is what makes cities expensive.

Some might also say that increasing the housing supply increases the demand for housing. I know that once San Francisco gets its affordable housing situation straightened out, I am moving there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some might also say that increasing the housing supply increases the demand for housing. I know that once San Francisco gets its affordable housing situation straightened out, I am moving there.

Go build a house out in the middle of nowhere and see who turns up to buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some might also say that increasing the housing supply increases the demand for housing. I know that once San Francisco gets its affordable housing situation straightened out, I am moving there.

Go build a house out in the middle of nowhere and see who turns up to buy it.

Go build a condo building on the Mall and see who turns up to buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

Er, NYC has politics too. And zoning. And NIMBYs.

Its also got a huge concentration of jobs. Much bigger than DC. And its housing construction has NOT kept pace with job growth. Which has been said over and over, and the folks KEEP reciting the talking point "Well NYC IS dense and expensive". Zombie talking point that has been shown to be misleading again and again.

Is there a bot writing the NIMBY talking points?

i think the general notion here is that increasing density is not a new idea. just because it's a hot topic with you and your friends down at the student union doesnt mean no one else has thought of it before. "cities need lots of housing," is not some incredible insight. cities have been getting more dense for decades, and yet none have become oases of affordable housing. if increasing density was the answer, why isn't there a single example anywhere of it working? why isn't there a single large city where lots of people want to live, where affordable housing is plentiful? to say, "well, everyone is just doing is wrong and they should really just be listening to me" is not very satisfying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

Philly and Chicago are also dense, and not so expensive. Austin and Silicon Valley are not so dense, but are very expensive. Hell Boulder Colorado is expensive.

Some might say that demand for housing (mostly driven by job growth) exceeding supply is what makes cities expensive.

Not to point out the obvious, but DC is swimming in money. We have a lot of rich people. Chicago? Philly? Not so much. Not surprisingly, their housing costs are lower. High incomes = high housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

+1 - Check out multifamily housing in Vienna/Tysons. None of it is affordable (except for the section 8 housing in Vienna). All this will possibly do is create expensive duplexes.

And while I am pretty liberal, I also don't like the state gov't overruling local ordinances. If these legislators want their locality to enact a law like this, go run for local government. It's a bad look.

[Anonymous]

And while I am pretty liberal, I also don't like the state gov't overruling local ordinances. If these legislators want their locality to enact a law like this, go run for local government. It's a bad look.

+1
Can't wait until these people on quarter of an acre lots start doing teardowns and putting in duplexes. Not gonna happen.