Missing Middle travesty in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Can a lawyer explain how/why this can happen? Having a court rule one way, then a few days later rule the complete opposite way, makes no sense. I'm not sure I've ever heard it happening before. I didn't even know it could happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a lawyer explain how/why this can happen? Having a court rule one way, then a few days later rule the complete opposite way, makes no sense. I'm not sure I've ever heard it happening before. I didn't even know it could happen.

It happens occasionally. In a trial court, it's typically called a motion for reconsideration, and in an appeals court like this, it's typically called a petition for rehearing. The standard is usually pretty tough -- i.e., you can't just say that the court screwed up and repeat the same arguments you made before, but instead you must essentially show some glaring error. The decision is pretty bare bones (https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/departments/documents/cmo/eho-trial-transcripts/court-order-petition-for-rehearing-granted-8-july-2025.pdf), so without seeing the parties' legal briefs, it's tough to know what the error was here that caused the appeals court to reverse itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

I think this is a troll. Most Republicans hate density and would never use a word like missing middle housing

Maybe most, but plenty do. I've seen this discussed on Fox News.
Tucker and Andres Duany, the founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism

Here is a clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aadJC3cgO0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Need to put all the YIMBY’s in one place (NYC) where they can be happy.

If NYC was a YIMBY paradise than New York wouldn't be losing congressional seats, idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not any more than I am terrified of 7-11s. I just don’t want to live next door to one.

Oh my gosh, how would you ever survive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

There are counter examples of cities that have experienced a lot of growth like Raleigh, Austin, and Denver that built a lot of supply and prices have stabilized.

I've heard that over 30% of the population lives in urban areas which account of 3% of all land.
With such a high demand to live in urban areas a trickle of new housing supply doesn't have a very pronounced effect.

But I've lived the alternative in Silicon Valley where there are NIMBYs on every corner on the new housing supply and apartments are very low...it's not pretty when average post-war beater homes average a few million dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

There are counter examples of cities that have experienced a lot of growth like Raleigh, Austin, and Denver that built a lot of supply and prices have stabilized.

I've heard that over 30% of the population lives in urban areas which account of 3% of all land.
With such a high demand to live in urban areas a trickle of new housing supply doesn't have a very pronounced effect.

But I've lived the alternative in Silicon Valley where there are NIMBYs on every corner on the new housing supply and apartments are very low...it's not pretty when average post-war beater homes average a few million dollars.

Austin prices have not stabilized. Far from it. Tech companies from SV flooding there during/after COVID continue to put upward pressure on housing costs. This has become bad enough that some SV companies have stopped/capped their Austin growth. The rapid huge rise in Austin housing costs means that upward salary pressures in Austin are not ignorable. Texas property law favors “developers”, so NIMBYs are not the reason for housing costs growth there.

Raleigh has not built a lot of supply, but neighboring sprawl communities like Cary have helped manage the upward housing costs there, at the cost of more and more congestion/delay on the commute routes to the RTP jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

There are counter examples of cities that have experienced a lot of growth like Raleigh, Austin, and Denver that built a lot of supply and prices have stabilized.

I've heard that over 30% of the population lives in urban areas which account of 3% of all land.
With such a high demand to live in urban areas a trickle of new housing supply doesn't have a very pronounced effect.

But I've lived the alternative in Silicon Valley where there are NIMBYs on every corner on the new housing supply and apartments are very low...it's not pretty when average post-war beater homes average a few million dollars.

Austin prices have not stabilized. Far from it. Tech companies from SV flooding there during/after COVID continue to put upward pressure on housing costs. This has become bad enough that some SV companies have stopped/capped their Austin growth. The rapid huge rise in Austin housing costs means that upward salary pressures in Austin are not ignorable. Texas property law favors “developers”, so NIMBYs are not the reason for housing costs growth there.

Raleigh has not built a lot of supply, but neighboring sprawl communities like Cary have helped manage the upward housing costs there, at the cost of more and more congestion/delay on the commute routes to the RTP jobs.

What are you talking about? Rent in Austin has plummeted due to … wait for it … development!

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-falling/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

There are counter examples of cities that have experienced a lot of growth like Raleigh, Austin, and Denver that built a lot of supply and prices have stabilized.

I've heard that over 30% of the population lives in urban areas which account of 3% of all land.
With such a high demand to live in urban areas a trickle of new housing supply doesn't have a very pronounced effect.

But I've lived the alternative in Silicon Valley where there are NIMBYs on every corner on the new housing supply and apartments are very low...it's not pretty when average post-war beater homes average a few million dollars.

Austin prices have not stabilized. Far from it. Tech companies from SV flooding there during/after COVID continue to put upward pressure on housing costs. This has become bad enough that some SV companies have stopped/capped their Austin growth. The rapid huge rise in Austin housing costs means that upward salary pressures in Austin are not ignorable. Texas property law favors “developers”, so NIMBYs are not the reason for housing costs growth there.

Raleigh has not built a lot of supply, but neighboring sprawl communities like Cary have helped manage the upward housing costs there, at the cost of more and more congestion/delay on the commute routes to the RTP jobs.

I've lived for years in Cary and went to college in that area, quite familiar with the area and Raleigh. Plenty of new multi-family supply in Cary dispersed next to multiple single-family home areas and not segregated in specific corridors like in Arlington. Downtown Raleigh has also had development.
I often look at real estate/rentals down there - you can easily find rentals in brand new apartment buildings for under $1400 a month. Plenty of new single family housing stock too in the metro area.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article300115874.html

"2025 starting off as a ‘renter’s market.’ What Triangle apartment hunters should know
February 13, 2025 8:00 AM ---
Platform is a new apartment building in Raleigh’s West End. It is currently offering up to two months free rent as part of a move-in deal. Kane Residential The price of eggs may be soaring, but renters are paying less for housing this year as new, amenity-rich buildings hit the Triangle market, driving down prices. In Raleigh, the median rent (mid-point where half cost less and half cost more) for a one-bedroom increased 0.8% from December, to $1,260 in January, according to Zumper’s national rent report. But that was still down 3.1% year over year."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need to put all the YIMBY’s in one place (NYC) where they can be happy.

If NYC was a YIMBY paradise than New York wouldn't be losing congressional seats, idiot.

Exactly my point. Very few YIMBYs. They are just loud and irrelevant. Should be ignored. They can just go form their high rise village some where and stop bothering people.

[Anonymous]

As an extreme NIMBY, I do understand that people must live somewhere. So I generally agree with progressive/smart growth strategy of population density along public transportation corridors, with the caveat existing SFH zoning should be preserved. There are plenty of other places served by public transportation that could redeveloped over existing SFH places like Arlington. We all know what is going on here, it’s a misguided attempt at equity nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need to put all the YIMBY’s in one place (NYC) where they can be happy.

If NYC was a YIMBY paradise than New York wouldn't be losing congressional seats, idiot.

Exactly my point. Very few YIMBYs. They are just loud and irrelevant. Should be ignored. They can just go form their high rise village some where and stop bothering people.

NYC the richest and biggest city in the USA is about to elect what some call a Communist, YIMBY yet you say YIMBYs are irrelevant.

I think YIMBYs want smart-development and "missing-middle" more than high-rises - missing middle houses - townhouses, duplexes - in your suburban development would be a good step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an extreme NIMBY, I do understand that people must live somewhere. So I generally agree with progressive/smart growth strategy of population density along public transportation corridors, with the caveat existing SFH zoning should be preserved. There are plenty of other places served by public transportation that could redeveloped over existing SFH places like Arlington. We all know what is going on here, it’s a misguided attempt at equity nonsense.

How is letting people decide what to do with their own property “equity nonsense”? and sorry to break it to you, but all of Arlington is a transportation corridor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an extreme NIMBY, I do understand that people must live somewhere. So I generally agree with progressive/smart growth strategy of population density along public transportation corridors, with the caveat existing SFH zoning should be preserved. There are plenty of other places served by public transportation that could redeveloped over existing SFH places like Arlington. We all know what is going on here, it’s a misguided attempt at equity nonsense.

How is letting people decide what to do with their own property “equity nonsense”? and sorry to break it to you, but all of Arlington is a transportation corridor.

+100

Based on your logic, all of Arlington should be made high density given its proximity to DC/Pentagon and Fairfax can maintain its existing SFH places. Curious to know how old you are, bc I’m guessing over 55 - or how much you paid for your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

There are counter examples of cities that have experienced a lot of growth like Raleigh, Austin, and Denver that built a lot of supply and prices have stabilized.

I've heard that over 30% of the population lives in urban areas which account of 3% of all land.
With such a high demand to live in urban areas a trickle of new housing supply doesn't have a very pronounced effect.

But I've lived the alternative in Silicon Valley where there are NIMBYs on every corner on the new housing supply and apartments are very low...it's not pretty when average post-war beater homes average a few million dollars.

Austin prices have not stabilized. Far from it. Tech companies from SV flooding there during/after COVID continue to put upward pressure on housing costs. This has become bad enough that some SV companies have stopped/capped their Austin growth. The rapid huge rise in Austin housing costs means that upward salary pressures in Austin are not ignorable. Texas property law favors “developers”, so NIMBYs are not the reason for housing costs growth there.

Raleigh has not built a lot of supply, but neighboring sprawl communities like Cary have helped manage the upward housing costs there, at the cost of more and more congestion/delay on the commute routes to the RTP jobs.

What are you talking about? Rent in Austin has plummeted due to … wait for it … development!

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/22/austin-texas-rents-falling/

YIMBYs need to stop citing Austin as a success story, considering that it's more expensive to live there now than it ever has been before. Plus, all that building was done via sprawl, which has horrific negative externalities that YIMBYs tend to hand-wave away. Combine that with truly laughable public transportation, and Austin is hardly some sort of urbanist utopia.

https://harlo.substack.com/p/austin-and-the-limits-of-yimby?r=d1w9g&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true