The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

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

This.

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

Most of Connecticut Avenue is 9+ stories. I don't understand the angst over a few more. Yet, the angst we are getting is over just the prospects of 4-6 story buildings. We are not talking about NYC style sky scrapers. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

Look at Hill East. They have no historic preservation requirements and you get a hodge lodge of pop ups and post modern bullsht architecture mixed in with lovely old row homes. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

Look at Hill East. They have no historic preservation requirements and you get a hodge lodge of pop ups and post modern bullsht architecture mixed in with lovely old row homes. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Cities historically have been a hodgepodge. The expectation of uniformity is ahistorical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

Look at Hill East. They have no historic preservation requirements and you get a hodge lodge of pop ups and post modern bullsht architecture mixed in with lovely old row homes. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because YOU think it is a hodgepodge doesn't make that a universal perspective. Should all building look the same? Who gets to decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

It’s hard to see how one can add infill development of 12 stories to historic district blocks that vary from one to four stories without basically saying that the historic district shouldn’t really matter anymore. Even DC’s guidelines for infill in his Otis districts generally limit height to within one additional story of the adjacent structures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

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

OK, Bob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

It’s hard to see how one can add infill development of 12 stories to historic district blocks that vary from one to four stories without basically saying that the historic district shouldn’t really matter anymore. Even DC’s guidelines for infill in his Otis districts generally limit height to within one additional story of the adjacent structures.

Not really. We've written historic district regulations based on "compatibility," i.e., the new stuff has to look like the old stuff. But it doesn't have to be that way. For example, historic districts could require preservation of the historic buildings but allow new, infill buildings to look different, have different heights, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say simply false, but it looks like we agree. Thank you. The market doesn't function because a few big developers dominate it.

The lawyer problem won't go away if we allow small-scale multifamily projects, though. We need to make permitting easier as well and make sure by-right development is flexible enough to accommodate lots of all configurations so smaller developers can add to the housing stock (ie no restrictive pattern books; height and lot coverage regulations, and nothing more). The underutilization problem also won't go away simply because of zoning. Even if all of Ward 3 were rezoned to allow triplexes, SFH still provide better returns on a risk-adjusted basis, and big developers will still limit demand to protect their existing holdings' returns.

This is an all-the-above problem. We need small-scale multifamily development to supplement large projects, but the bulk of new units will come from projects with 100+ units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say simply false, but it looks like we agree. Thank you. The market doesn't function because a few big developers dominate it.

The lawyer problem won't go away if we allow small-scale multifamily projects, though. We need to make permitting easier as well and make sure by-right development is flexible enough to accommodate lots of all configurations so smaller developers can add to the housing stock (ie no restrictive pattern books; height and lot coverage regulations, and nothing more). The underutilization problem also won't go away simply because of zoning. Even if all of Ward 3 were rezoned to allow triplexes, SFH still provide better returns on a risk-adjusted basis, and big developers will still limit demand to protect their existing holdings' returns.

This is an all-the-above problem. We need small-scale multifamily development to supplement large projects, but the bulk of new units will come from projects with 100+ units.

That's fine if the big developers would still avoid it - good thing we live in a free market and that others could swoop in and build it themselves. Thanks.

[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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say simply false, but it looks like we agree. Thank you. The market doesn't function because a few big developers dominate it.

The lawyer problem won't go away if we allow small-scale multifamily projects, though. We need to make permitting easier as well and make sure by-right development is flexible enough to accommodate lots of all configurations so smaller developers can add to the housing stock (ie no restrictive pattern books; height and lot coverage regulations, and nothing more). The underutilization problem also won't go away simply because of zoning. Even if all of Ward 3 were rezoned to allow triplexes, SFH still provide better returns on a risk-adjusted basis, and big developers will still limit demand to protect their existing holdings' returns.

This is an all-the-above problem. We need small-scale multifamily development to supplement large projects, but the bulk of new units will come from projects with 100+ units.

That's fine if the big developers would still avoid it - good thing we live in a free market and that others could swoop in and build it themselves. Thanks.

Except others can't just swoop in for all of the reasons mentioned above. These kinds of statements make urbanists sound more like lobbyists for big developers than advocates for more housing. That's fine if you don't get it, but please stop pretending you're in this to help make housing more affordable.

[Anonymous]

They could if the legalistic loopholes were simplified so the average property owner could manage their property.

[Anonymous]

There has to be some line drawn on historic neighborhoods. If you can’t do that, why would anyone think the urbanists can be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

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

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

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

You realize that most American cities that people love, NY, Philadelphia, Boston - have an intermix of SFH and small apartment buildings, right? And yet, people clamor to live there and love it.

And...there are ways of designing and building multi-family buildings, maybe 2-4 units, that actually LOOK like SFH, but are designed to simply house more people. If your concern is massing and aesthetics, then that is achievable.

And yes, there should be 10-12 story buildings on our transit corridors. Why is that a bad thing?

It’s hard to see how one can add infill development of 12 stories to historic district blocks that vary from one to four stories without basically saying that the historic district shouldn’t really matter anymore. Even DC’s guidelines for infill in his Otis districts generally limit height to within one additional story of the adjacent structures.

Not really. We've written historic district regulations based on "compatibility," i.e., the new stuff has to look like the old stuff. But it doesn't have to be that way. For example, historic districts could require preservation of the historic buildings but allow new, infill buildings to look different, have different heights, etc.

But then it wouldn’t be much of an historic district anymore. But that’s the Trumpy DC Smart Growth objective, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Oh please. There are historic districts all over DC and across the country that have different types of new construction in them. They are not meant to be Williamsburg style museums.