MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

On a long enough timeline, sure, anything can happen. When it happens in Chevy Chase you should make sure to get your flying car space included with your condo fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Subdividing a large rowhouse into multiple condos makes money for the developer (first and foremost), the architects, contractors, and the real estate professionals. The condos however are not cheap, and cost a small fortune.

What’s wrong with that? It’s much better to have three households that can afford a $1.2 million house than one that can afford $2 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Subdividing a large rowhouse into multiple condos makes money for the developer (first and foremost), the architects, contractors, and the real estate professionals. The condos however are not cheap, and cost a small fortune.

Which costs less, a condo in a large rowhouse subdivided into multiple condos, or a large rowhouse?

Condos are the engines of gentrification. They drive up the price of everything.

Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

At the right price point, any family, or the adult offspring, would be willing to sell their “coveted” 5 bedroom classic colonial, four square, tudor, or bungalow in Chevy Chase (less than a mile from the metro or purple line) to a developer who would subdivide the home into multiple condos/flats. This would also support lots of jobs: architects, contractors, govt jobs in permitting, etc. Higher density would demand greater transit frequency, so more bus drivers, train operators, etc.

The downsides may include: yard and landscaping maintenance, and too many cars if everyone drives. But if the condo units remain owner occupied and not rented, the yards should remain attractive. Parking ordinances could discourage curb parking and thus driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

At the right price point, any family, or the adult offspring, would be willing to sell their “coveted” 5 bedroom classic colonial, four square, tudor, or bungalow in Chevy Chase (less than a mile from the metro or purple line) to a developer who would subdivide the home into multiple condos/flats. This would also support lots of jobs: architects, contractors, govt jobs in permitting, etc. Higher density would demand greater transit frequency, so more bus drivers, train operators, etc.

The downsides may include: yard and landscaping maintenance, and too many cars if everyone drives. But if the condo units remain owner occupied and not rented, the yards should remain attractive. Parking ordinances could discourage curb parking and thus driving.

People already aren't selling. There's very little inventory on the market. We don't know anyone selling their home, but we know lots of people happy to rent you their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

I have zero interest in ever selling my CC house and have been contemplating setting restrictions in our trust to prevent my kids/grandkids from selling for this reason for “x” amount of years. 25-50yrs from now, our property will be a goldmine and they can cash flow off it, or sell it for a ridiculous amount. Sadly; the only route Moco will head is to add significant density in what are currently wealthy areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

I have zero interest in ever selling my CC house and have been contemplating setting restrictions in our trust to prevent my kids/grandkids from selling for this reason for “x” amount of years. 25-50yrs from now, our property will be a goldmine and they can cash flow off it, or sell it for a ridiculous amount. Sadly; the only route Moco will head is to add significant density in what are currently wealthy areas.

What a terrible thing to do to your children and grandchildren, tying their hands like that long after you're dead.

[Anonymous]

People also forget that many of the older homes will be demolished for new builds with multiple flats, in order to maximize profit and lot coverage

I do hope that some of the beautiful older single family homes will be restored however during their conversions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

Right, and housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on their profits.