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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

Doesn't matter. If you purchase in a neighborhood that has zoning rules, you expect them to stay--or, at least have it done at a local level that gives you the opportunity to protest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

It's true.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there? Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there. Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

Doesn't matter. If you purchase in a neighborhood that has zoning rules, you expect them to stay--or, at least have it done at a local level that gives you the opportunity to protest.

You shouldn't, though.

Things change. That is well-known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

If it isn't going to happen, then you don't have to worry about it. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

It's true.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there? Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there. Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

We have the Mall because the McMillan Commission decided in 1902 that a vast expanse of open space was more suitable than the housing, commercial buildings, and railroad tracks that occupied the area at the time.

"City Beautiful" ideas produced some good-looking monuments but were not notably concerned with livable cities.

I don't have a problem with triplexes.

[Anonymous]

We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

This is not about subsidized housing, though.

It's like people's minds are on a one-way track: housing --> affordable housing --> subsidized housing --> Section 8 --> Pruitt-Igoe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Is there a bot writing the NIMBY talking points?

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

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

You are confusing two different concepts - housing subsidies and a state-mandated change in zoning laws - likely because all that really interests you is reducing the desirability of areas like Vienna, McLean and Great Falls (Seneca is just part of Great Falls). Sorry you’re so dissatisfied with your community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

You are confusing two different concepts - housing subsidies and a state-mandated change in zoning laws - likely because all that really interests you is reducing the desirability of areas like Vienna, McLean and Great Falls (Seneca is just part of Great Falls). Sorry you’re so dissatisfied with your community.

It's so unhealthy. I'm happy with my neighborhood. Even if I weren't, I would never see changing some other neighborhood as a solution to my own dissatisfaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

It's true.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there? Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there. Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

We have the Mall because the McMillan Commission decided in 1902 that a vast expanse of open space was more suitable than the housing, commercial buildings, and railroad tracks that occupied the area at the time.

"City Beautiful" ideas produced some good-looking monuments but were not notably concerned with livable cities.

I don't have a problem with triplexes.

You obviously havent lived in many different places. As far as big cities go, DC is about as livable as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

It's true.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there? Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there. Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

We have the Mall because the McMillan Commission decided in 1902 that a vast expanse of open space was more suitable than the housing, commercial buildings, and railroad tracks that occupied the area at the time.

"City Beautiful" ideas produced some good-looking monuments but were not notably concerned with livable cities.

I don't have a problem with triplexes.

You obviously havent lived in many different places. As far as big cities go, DC is about as livable as it gets.

DC's liveability is despite the City Beautiful, not because of it. Planning for big, wide streets with vistas and monuments for middle-class white people to look at, instead of planning for cities for everybody to live in.

http://exhibits.ced.berkeley.edu/exhibits/show/citybeautiful/tenets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

Is there a bot writing the NIMBY talking points?

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

The notion of reforming restrictive zoning is relatively new - really only in the debate the last ten years at most. NYC got a lot of its density before restrictive zoning even became a thing. So your presentation of history is not really accurate.

As for examples the most dramatics is Tokyo.

https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build

Consider a recent Financial Times article about the 13.6-million-person Japanese capital. Like so many other global first-world cities, Tokyo is experiencing explosive population growth, increasing by 1.6 million people since 2000. And unlike practically every U.S. city, it has almost no empty land. So it has responded through vertical growth, tearing down old structures and replacing them with high rises at a pace light-years ahead of anywhere in modern America. As FT's Tokyo bureau chief Robin Harding wrote in the article, the city had 142,417 housing starts in 2014, which was “more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m)." Compare this, also, with the roughly 20,000 new residential units approved annually in New York City, the 23,500 units started in Los Angeles County, and the measly 5,000 homes constructed in 2015 throughout the entire Bay Area.

This has stabilized Tokyo's housing prices, wrote Harding, and has kept them far lower than in many U.S. cities.

Of course someone will explain that is not a model because they are culturally different from us.

Any place that has succeeded will be explained as different - until we are left with the US and other places that have similar restrictive zoning.

Fact is no US cities have massively reformed zoning. Minneapolis and Seattle have taken big steps, but I think its too soon to judge the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

Doesn't matter. If you purchase in a neighborhood that has zoning rules, you expect them to stay--or, at least have it done at a local level that gives you the opportunity to protest.

Zoning rules should never be considered "property rights"

The abuses of the right to protest at the local level is one reason I am considering supporting this legislation, despite some weaknesses.