Missing middle- Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

Are upper class people dying to live in multiplexes?

I know things get confusing in a HCOL area like DC, but if you're buying a $1.25 million duplex, or renting a $4000 unit in a multiplex, you're upper class. You're certainly not the 25-year-old middle-class nonprofit worker, teacher, or firefighter who thought this was the ticket to living the good life in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

Not Danville, Daniel.

https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/EHO/Tracker

There is one on Daniel but the one we just filed is on Danville.

The proposed 6 plex on N Daniel is for a 6000 SF lot but the county’s webpage says the following:

Lots not meeting these minimum dimensional standards can be developed with EHO project if the lot is nonconforming, per ACZO §16.1.1 Nonconforming Lots. EHO development on nonconforming lots is limited to no more than four (4) dwelling units unless the lot is 7,000 sq. ft. or more.


What am I missing? Doesn’t the lot have to be 7000 SF for a 6 plex? Any builders or realtors have the answer to this question?

I think I’m about to answer my own question: is it a conforming lot bc it’s zoned R-5 and has 6000 SF?

But if it were zoned R-6 and had 5500 SF, would it be non-conforming and limited to a 4 plex?

TIA!

For the sake of completeness there is a special rule for R-5 lots that requires a minimum of 6000 sq ft for 5-6 plexes. So as a practical matter 6k square ft is the minimum for 5+ units.

Thanks! For those of us who have smaller lots (5500 and smaller) and older homes, would you expect they would still sell to someone building a SFH? Or will we now have more buyers interested bc of the missing middle code changes?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

Not Danville, Daniel.

https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Permits/EHO/Tracker

There is one on Daniel but the one we just filed is on Danville.

The proposed 6 plex on N Daniel is for a 6000 SF lot but the county’s webpage says the following:

Lots not meeting these minimum dimensional standards can be developed with EHO project if the lot is nonconforming, per ACZO §16.1.1 Nonconforming Lots. EHO development on nonconforming lots is limited to no more than four (4) dwelling units unless the lot is 7,000 sq. ft. or more.


What am I missing? Doesn’t the lot have to be 7000 SF for a 6 plex? Any builders or realtors have the answer to this question?

I think I’m about to answer my own question: is it a conforming lot bc it’s zoned R-5 and has 6000 SF?

But if it were zoned R-6 and had 5500 SF, would it be non-conforming and limited to a 4 plex?

TIA!

For the sake of completeness there is a special rule for R-5 lots that requires a minimum of 6000 sq ft for 5-6 plexes. So as a practical matter 6k square ft is the minimum for 5+ units.

Thanks! For those of us who have smaller lots (5500 and smaller) and older homes, would you expect they would still sell to someone building a SFH? Or will we now have more buyers interested bc of the missing middle code changes?

There are minimum widths for semi-detached houses and townhouses that means you effectively need a 64 ft wide lot to build them. So I think those lots are really limited to duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes. So more interest I guess but would depend on area as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

If every older home is already sold to a builder how could it accelerate? Will they aggressively cold call people who live in older homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

Are upper class people dying to live in multiplexes?

I know things get confusing in a HCOL area like DC, but if you're buying a $1.25 million duplex, or renting a $4000 unit in a multiplex, you're upper class. You're certainly not the 25-year-old middle-class nonprofit worker, teacher, or firefighter who thought this was the ticket to living the good life in Arlington

Yes, but you’re not the same level of upper class that can afford a $2.5m new SFH. Most likely you are looking at a two professional income family that brings home around $300k - $400k and has little bit of money saved up or some family help, probably has some student loans from getting those professional degrees, and if they have kids has about $40k or more in annual childcare costs. That’s who is going to benefit- the UMC folks who used to buy here and found themselves increasingly priced out of what has become a place that is only welcoming to the very wealthy and very poor who won a lottery slot.

The nonprofit workers and public servants have been priced out of the types of houses they want here for a long time. Yes, they could buy a tiny condo or rent a small garden style apartment even at their incomes, but they want space and a few walls of their own. MM isn’t going to give that to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

Are upper class people dying to live in multiplexes?

I know things get confusing in a HCOL area like DC, but if you're buying a $1.25 million duplex, or renting a $4000 unit in a multiplex, you're upper class. You're certainly not the 25-year-old middle-class nonprofit worker, teacher, or firefighter who thought this was the ticket to living the good life in Arlington

So naive and entitled (plus the misleading marketing by the Board for MMH) - these 20 somethings genuinely thought they were going to magically own in Arlington. I was in a community meeting with one of these young millennials who was arguing for MMH saying it was like a car, that she may not be able to own MMH right away (like a new car) but as more MMH is built prices will depreciate (like a car). A home owner in her 40s and 50s needed to explain that real estate and cars don’t depreciate/appreciate in the same way. This is what we were dealing with for a large number of YIMBYs. Lack of knowledge about economics and total naïveté/entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

If every older home is already sold to a builder how could it accelerate? Will they aggressively cold call people who live in older homes?

You must not own. Everyone in Real Estate does this. Half my mail is/was home related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

Are upper class people dying to live in multiplexes?

I know things get confusing in a HCOL area like DC, but if you're buying a $1.25 million duplex, or renting a $4000 unit in a multiplex, you're upper class. You're certainly not the 25-year-old middle-class nonprofit worker, teacher, or firefighter who thought this was the ticket to living the good life in Arlington

Yes, but you’re not the same level of upper class that can afford a $2.5m new SFH. Most likely you are looking at a two professional income family that brings home around $300k - $400k and has little bit of money saved up or some family help, probably has some student loans from getting those professional degrees, and if they have kids has about $40k or more in annual childcare costs. That’s who is going to benefit- the UMC folks who used to buy here and found themselves increasingly priced out of what has become a place that is only welcoming to the very wealthy and very poor who won a lottery slot.

The nonprofit workers and public servants have been priced out of the types of houses they want here for a long time. Yes, they could buy a tiny condo or rent a small garden style apartment even at their incomes, but they want space and a few walls of their own. MM isn’t going to give that to them.

I think MM is precisely for those people. Compromises are going to have to be made of course, that’s what we did. We’ll have to wait and see but MM is ideal for those people. Only their entitlement will be an issue the way I see it, everyone here thinks they deserve a sfh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a house on 5041 25th Street S sold for $560k (4 beds 1 bath) to a developer who is going to tear it down and build 2 houses that probably cost a million each. Perfect example of pricing people out of Arlington - it’s going to be all renters and rich people. The proponents of MMH were so dishonest (or just really uninformed) - this was never going to help bring affordable housing or more housing for minorities - just more density.

The alternative was a builder buys it and builds a single 2.0 million house. Last time I checked 1.0 million is less than 2.0 million. It's adding more options in the middle.

No one ever said it was for affordable housing - you misunderstood them.

Well, the MM proponents were happy to have it misunderstood as "affordable housing" but plenty of people said it wouldn't be.

Looking at street view for that house/street, it actually seems like the kind of area where townhomes or a 4/6-plex would make sense. Very old, run down houses just off Route 7, behind a Taco Bell. Not a great location for a $2M house.

Literally no one said it was going to be affordable housing.

Many said it would be “affordable” housing but redefined “affordable” as the above poster did. A $1.5 million townhouse is more affordable than a $2.5 million single house.

Many also inferred it would be affordable because Arlington County did a miserable PR job in rolling out the plan

Why did they change the name from Missing Middle Housing (MMH) to Expanded Housing Options? Answer me that? Because people were led to believe that missing Middle priced homes would be the goal. Then when people called them out on this they needed to change the name. I was part of the meetings so you can’t spin this to me. They tried to sell MMH as housing for minorities and people that couldn’t currently afford Arlington. Then it turned out that these units were going to be around a million or up. Not really affordable at all.

Rebranding of fake BS. In Alexandria the increased height ordinance was rebranded as a racial program to generate more support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

Yep. All the “entry level” SFH homes will be bought by all cash investors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

If every older home is already sold to a builder how could it accelerate? Will they aggressively cold call people who live in older homes?

You must not own. Everyone in Real Estate does this. Half my mail is/was home related.

+1. But I think the potential buyers will step up their efforts now that lots can be developed for investors rather than sold to a SFH owner. I already saw an email from the county essentially warning people not to sell off-market if they want the best price. Sadly, an email isn’t likely to reach the people most at risk of leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

If every older home is already sold to a builder how could it accelerate? Will they aggressively cold call people who live in older homes?

You must not own. Everyone in Real Estate does this. Half my mail is/was home related.

I am a home owner and I do get that mail. That's why I find the expectation that older home sales will accelerate because of MM a little hard to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a middle?

Most rich towns often have rich homes and a poorer section where the maids, landscapers, handiman live.

I mean does Beverly Hills, Palm Beach and Aspen concerned about the middle?

No

Don't worry, this will actually help get rid of the middle class, as old-time, middle and lower-class homeowners sell out to developers. And then upper-class people move into the new duplex, townhouses, and multiplexes. It's a developer's dream.

This has been happening for years. Do you have any proof that MMH policy will speed up the sale of older homes to developers?

+1

It already happens a lot.

Arlington agent here. Every older home in poor condition generally sells to a builder. Now that they can diversify from building single family homes to multi family housing that they can quickly sell to investors, it will likely accelerate the pace because they will not be concerned about carrying and marketing costs.

An agent asked for advice this morning on which builders to call to sell a tear down on an R-5 lot. I told her to call the three builders who have applied for MM permits.

Permitting has been in place for less than a month, so you may have to wait for a year to collect data on tear downs used for single family versus multi family.

If every older home is already sold to a builder how could it accelerate? Will they aggressively cold call people who live in older homes?

You must not own. Everyone in Real Estate does this. Half my mail is/was home related.

+1. But I think the potential buyers will step up their efforts now that lots can be developed for investors rather than sold to a SFH owner. I already saw an email from the county essentially warning people not to sell off-market if they want the best price. Sadly, an email isn’t likely to reach the people most at risk of leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table.

Meh. We sold off market and definitely got "market value". If you follow the market closely you can price it correctly.