City of Alexandria rolls out timeline for massive housing reform project

[Anonymous]

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

Really, you could say - wow this group delivered 300 units last year and 260 have leased up since - ton of demand for housing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ "Right decision" is subjective. The City literally took an area (Seminary from Howard to Quaker) without a high KSI rate and put in the road diet. Meanwhile, the part of Seminary that was actually dangerous three years ago (see the KSI rate) is still dangerous today. Some folks think it's interesting that the area near Jim Durham and his wealthy bike bros got the improvements while the majority POC area between Howard and Dawes on Seminary got zilch.

What they did was right, AND they should do more of it in more places.

Well you've convinced me with that argument full of salient details.

Get used to it: That is right out of the YIMBY word salad playbook. Join the YIMBY Nova Facebook page to learn their interpretation of critical thinking skills.

[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...

Housing in Arlington is not going to be more equitable, accessible and affordable. Builders have applied for 22 permits and 15 are for 3 to 6 units plexes that will be high priced rentals. The townhouses and semi-detached have projected prices of $1.3 to $1.5 M. That's why Arlington had to change the name from "Missing Middle Housing" because it implied that the middle class could buy the expensive new properties. It is now "Expanded Housing Options," which just means there will be new, expensive townhouses and semi-detached units for sale and new,expensive three to six plexes for rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hello my fellow West Ender. Justin has made our area the dumping ground, so that he can please the people in Old Town, Rosemont, DelRay and Beverley Hills by keeping the undesirables out of their neighborhoods and shifting them to the West End.

[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...

Housing in Arlington is not going to be more equitable, accessible and affordable. Builders have applied for 22 permits and 15 are for 3 to 6 units plexes that will be high priced rentals. The townhouses and semi-detached have projected prices of $1.3 to $1.5 M. That's why Arlington had to change the name from "Missing Middle Housing" because it implied that the middle class could buy the expensive new properties. It is now "Expanded Housing Options," which just means there will be new, expensive townhouses and semi-detached units for sale and new,expensive three to six plexes for rent.

No, it didn't. Middle housing is the housing in the middle of the continuum of housing types, where high-rise multi-unit buildings are on one end, and single-unit buildings on large lots are on the other end.

What would the price per unit of the single-unit McMansions have been, compared to the price per unit of the attached houses that will be built instead of the single-unit McMansions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

The link I provided was filtered to two beds. How that was missed by someone bright enough to differentiate debate stances, well, you got me.

Soooo, true or false, the Del Ray units would be less expensive than the ones off Beauregard?

And if there is a housing 'crisis' (ohhhh, scary word!!!) why are there even just 42 units sitting vacant right now?

Maybe that was your intention, but that was not the result.

Why are there 42 units available right now, according to the website you linked to? Well, one reason might be that they cost more than potential renters can afford. Another reason might be that there are a lot of potential renters whom management won't rent to because their credit is too bad. Or even both - potential renters with bad credit would have to pay higher rents, which would be more than they could afford.

Honestly, your "there is no housing crisis" discourse kind of reminds me of "there is no hunger in America" discourse (after all, there are people who are both poor and fat!) or "there is no health care crisis in America" discourse (after all, if you go to the emergency room, they have to treat you!).

So you think rezoning single family neighborhoods in Alexandria will create housing units that people with low credit scores can buy or rent? That is a novel concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

The link I provided was filtered to two beds. How that was missed by someone bright enough to differentiate debate stances, well, you got me.

Soooo, true or false, the Del Ray units would be less expensive than the ones off Beauregard?

And if there is a housing 'crisis' (ohhhh, scary word!!!) why are there even just 42 units sitting vacant right now?

Maybe that was your intention, but that was not the result.

Why are there 42 units available right now, according to the website you linked to? Well, one reason might be that they cost more than potential renters can afford. Another reason might be that there are a lot of potential renters whom management won't rent to because their credit is too bad. Or even both - potential renters with bad credit would have to pay higher rents, which would be more than they could afford.

Honestly, your "there is no housing crisis" discourse kind of reminds me of "there is no hunger in America" discourse (after all, there are people who are both poor and fat!) or "there is no health care crisis in America" discourse (after all, if you go to the emergency room, they have to treat you!).

So you think rezoning single family neighborhoods in Alexandria will create housing units that people with low credit scores can buy or rent? That is a novel concept.

I think that allowing multi-unit buildings to be built in Alexandria, where previously only single-unit buildings were allowed to be built, will increase the supply of housing, which is a good thing, and will also likely decrease the price of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.