The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

Nobody was claiming that. However, there is a lot of land that is zoned for exclusively single-family-detached.

It's kind of funny for a person to complain about whataboutism while also complaining that urbanists aren't complaining about developers who build projects that are smaller than the maximum allowed.

There’s a difference between not engaging an argument in good faith by misstating the argument and changing the subject (what you were doing) and pointing out that the policy recommendation (in this case upzoning alone) is inadequate to fulfill the stated policy goal (more density).

Oh hey, look who's not engaging in good faith! Nobody is saying that upzoning alone will increase density. We're just hung up on upzoning because somebody upthread is convinced it's unnecessary and that Ward 3 will be irreparably harmed if people are allowed to build duplexes there.

You have made no other suggestions, even when asked. Urbanists in local policy positions have made no other suggestions, readily approve underutilization, and have singularly focused on zoning. It’s fair to conclude you’re not willing to hold developers to account for their roles in driving housing prices up or do anything to make it harder for them to continue to do so.

Your complaint seems to be "I think urbanists should be, but aren't, angry at developers."

What purpose would being angry serve? Instead of being angry, think of ways to make the market work better. Housing prices have skyrocketed while developers have delayed projects because they're concerned about absorption. Those two things should not happen simultaneously. (And the latter was already happening pre-pandemic)

Hint: relaxed zoning would invite other people to build stuff, because, you know, competition is a thing.

Hint: Competition is only a thing if a market is functioning well. This one is not. Those supply curves you looked at in economics 101 were based on a lot of assumptions that don’t hold in this case (and rarely do).

Zoning would be more likely to be the cause of the market breakdown if there weren’t tens of thousands of unbuilt units in DC’s development pipeline. In that case, you would have a regulation-induced shortage instead of a developer-induced shortage.

[Anonymous]

Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

Nice dog whistling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

It is actually the opposite of the doom and gloom you project.

Traffic is unbearable because we don't invest enough in mass transit and bikes. If you live somewhere you are forced to drive a single occupancy vehicle as a sole means of getting around, then the royal we are doing it wrong. Having more density means there are more viable alternatives produced by the market and by government, for mobility choice. More choice means more space on the road for those who live where they must drive, or are willing to pay a premium for it.

I am not sure why you project doom for schools. If there is that much of a population boom, then we should be building more schools, and the white collar jobs will follow. As it is, being a suburb of DC means there will always be plenty of white collar jobs around the government and contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

It is actually the opposite of the doom and gloom you project.

Traffic is unbearable because we don't invest enough in mass transit and bikes. If you live somewhere you are forced to drive a single occupancy vehicle as a sole means of getting around, then the royal we are doing it wrong. Having more density means there are more viable alternatives produced by the market and by government, for mobility choice. More choice means more space on the road for those who live where they must drive, or are willing to pay a premium for it.

I am not sure why you project doom for schools. If there is that much of a population boom, then we should be building more schools, and the white collar jobs will follow. As it is, being a suburb of DC means there will always be plenty of white collar jobs around the government and contractors.

PP projects doom for the schools because PP believes that "suburban" schools are good and "urban" schools are bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.

Nobody was claiming that. However, there is a lot of land that is zoned for exclusively single-family-detached.

It's kind of funny for a person to complain about whataboutism while also complaining that urbanists aren't complaining about developers who build projects that are smaller than the maximum allowed.

There’s a difference between not engaging an argument in good faith by misstating the argument and changing the subject (what you were doing) and pointing out that the policy recommendation (in this case upzoning alone) is inadequate to fulfill the stated policy goal (more density).

Oh hey, look who's not engaging in good faith! Nobody is saying that upzoning alone will increase density. We're just hung up on upzoning because somebody upthread is convinced it's unnecessary and that Ward 3 will be irreparably harmed if people are allowed to build duplexes there.

You have made no other suggestions, even when asked. Urbanists in local policy positions have made no other suggestions, readily approve underutilization, and have singularly focused on zoning. It’s fair to conclude you’re not willing to hold developers to account for their roles in driving housing prices up or do anything to make it harder for them to continue to do so.

Your complaint seems to be "I think urbanists should be, but aren't, angry at developers."

What purpose would being angry serve? Instead of being angry, think of ways to make the market work better. Housing prices have skyrocketed while developers have delayed projects because they're concerned about absorption. Those two things should not happen simultaneously. (And the latter was already happening pre-pandemic)

Hint: relaxed zoning would invite other people to build stuff, because, you know, competition is a thing.

Hint: Competition is only a thing if a market is functioning well. This one is not. Those supply curves you looked at in economics 101 were based on a lot of assumptions that don’t hold in this case (and rarely do).

Zoning would be more likely to be the cause of the market breakdown if there weren’t tens of thousands of unbuilt units in DC’s development pipeline. In that case, you would have a regulation-induced shortage instead of a developer-induced shortage.

Simply false. Restrictive zoning allows only a few big developers to gain power, because only they can afford the lawyers and time to navigate the process. No small family would ever DREAM of building a house in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Most zoning in Ward 3 prohibits duplexes or even rowhouses now.

That is what the so-called Urbanists are trying to help address.

What the DC Smart Growth lobby is pushing are 10-12 story buildings on major streets, even in low-rise historic districts in Ward 3. On the side streets, they push soothing-sounding “gentle density.” This means that a developer could build a small apartment building of 8 or 9 units in a SFH zone. So instead of a tear down that results in a mini-mansion next door to you, an apartment building could be built next to SFHs on a side street, with no parking requirements. All of this is “matter of right” which means no review of plans by the zoning commission and no challenges by neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Urbanist Cult seems to be a bunch of Density Bros living in mom's basement and being influenced by Trump Lobbyist guy and other paid flacks who are trying to get regulatory favors for developers.

Or, we passed Econ 101?

Hint: Nobody cares about Trump anymore.

No. He doesn’t get a pass.

And should we give a pass to someone who advised the Trump campaign on sharpening its message of “protecting” neighborhoods from affordable housing and then turns around and lobbies for big DC developers on the false pretext that laissez faire dense development will yield affordable housing benefits in DC? Or are we so inured to being spun that we simply shrug that such shameless hypocrisy is being used to grab windfall profits for upmarket developers at the expense of DC’s neighborhoods

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Most zoning in Ward 3 prohibits duplexes or even rowhouses now.

That is what the so-called Urbanists are trying to help address.

What the DC Smart Growth lobby is pushing are 10-12 story buildings on major streets, even in low-rise historic districts in Ward 3. On the side streets, they push soothing-sounding “gentle density.” This means that a developer could build a small apartment building of 8 or 9 units in a SFH zone. So instead of a tear down that results in a mini-mansion next door to you, an apartment building could be built next to SFHs on a side street, with no parking requirements. All of this is “matter of right” which means no review of plans by the zoning commission and no challenges by neighbors.

This sounds great. What's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Most zoning in Ward 3 prohibits duplexes or even rowhouses now.

That is what the so-called Urbanists are trying to help address.

What the DC Smart Growth lobby is pushing are 10-12 story buildings on major streets, even in low-rise historic districts in Ward 3. On the side streets, they push soothing-sounding “gentle density.” This means that a developer could build a small apartment building of 8 or 9 units in a SFH zone. So instead of a tear down that results in a mini-mansion next door to you, an apartment building could be built next to SFHs on a side street, with no parking requirements. All of this is “matter of right” which means no review of plans by the zoning commission and no challenges by neighbors.

Oh, that sounds nice! How can we help make that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Urbanist Cult seems to be a bunch of Density Bros living in mom's basement and being influenced by Trump Lobbyist guy and other paid flacks who are trying to get regulatory favors for developers.

Or, we passed Econ 101?

Hint: Nobody cares about Trump anymore.

No. He doesn’t get a pass.

And should we give a pass to someone who advised the Trump campaign on sharpening its message of “protecting” neighborhoods from affordable housing and then turns around and lobbies for big DC developers on the false pretext that laissez faire dense development will yield affordable housing benefits in DC? Or are we so inured to being spun that we simply shrug that such shameless hypocrisy is being used to grab windfall profits for upmarket developers at the expense of DC’s neighborhoods

I sincerely hope that I'm not the only person who enjoys the irony of maligning efforts to upzone DC on account of a pollster helping Trump's emotional appeals to protect neighborhoods by ... making an emotional appeal to protect neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Most zoning in Ward 3 prohibits duplexes or even rowhouses now.

That is what the so-called Urbanists are trying to help address.

What the DC Smart Growth lobby is pushing are 10-12 story buildings on major streets, even in low-rise historic districts in Ward 3. On the side streets, they push soothing-sounding “gentle density.” This means that a developer could build a small apartment building of 8 or 9 units in a SFH zone. So instead of a tear down that results in a mini-mansion next door to you, an apartment building could be built next to SFHs on a side street, with no parking requirements. All of this is “matter of right” which means no review of plans by the zoning commission and no challenges by neighbors.

Literally the worst possible idea. It will ruin neighborhoods. Let DC be DC. Don't turn it into featureless urban landscape like outer borough Queens where I grew up. Ugh. It gives me a pit in my stomach that people don't understand that what makes this city so amazing is the blue sky and green trees. Once it is destroyed, you will never get it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Most zoning in Ward 3 prohibits duplexes or even rowhouses now.

That is what the so-called Urbanists are trying to help address.

What the DC Smart Growth lobby is pushing are 10-12 story buildings on major streets, even in low-rise historic districts in Ward 3. On the side streets, they push soothing-sounding “gentle density.” This means that a developer could build a small apartment building of 8 or 9 units in a SFH zone. So instead of a tear down that results in a mini-mansion next door to you, an apartment building could be built next to SFHs on a side street, with no parking requirements. All of this is “matter of right” which means no review of plans by the zoning commission and no challenges by neighbors.

Literally the worst possible idea. It will ruin neighborhoods. Let DC be DC. Don't turn it into featureless urban landscape like outer borough Queens where I grew up. Ugh. It gives me a pit in my stomach that people don't understand that what makes this city so amazing is the blue sky and green trees. Once it is destroyed, you will never get it back.

This.

You build at all cost folks, have no idea about the charms of a low slung historic city. You only care about shoehorning in as much density out of “equity” or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers build what makes them the most money. Full stop. They don't care about density, community, or anything else.

Wanting to turn the suburbs into urban areas (cement city if you will) is not what I want, which is why I saved up and moved to the suburbs. But but the majority will prevail. Right now, it is not clear to me if it is a very vocal minority (GGW and their worshippers, who are everywhere on social media) wanting to densify everything, or the majority. Time will tell.

And by the time it happens (public schools will be fully destroyed, traffic unbearable, and taxes coming into the county less because no large business with thousands of white collar jobs will come here because the schools are a disaster and there is no suburban area for their white collar professionals will want to live), we will be long gone.

It is actually the opposite of the doom and gloom you project.

Traffic is unbearable because we don't invest enough in mass transit and bikes. If you live somewhere you are forced to drive a single occupancy vehicle as a sole means of getting around, then the royal we are doing it wrong. Having more density means there are more viable alternatives produced by the market and by government, for mobility choice. More choice means more space on the road for those who live where they must drive, or are willing to pay a premium for it.

I am not sure why you project doom for schools. If there is that much of a population boom, then we should be building more schools, and the white collar jobs will follow. As it is, being a suburb of DC means there will always be plenty of white collar jobs around the government and contractors.

PP projects doom for the schools because PP believes that "suburban" schools are good and "urban" schools are bad.

Dunbar is a great school. The majority of the kids in dc read good and can do other stuff good to.