Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These threads are so ridiculous because half the people think the result will be more expensive housing and half think it will be less expensive housing and there are people who use either outcome to be for or against the change

I mean both can be true. An existing SFH can be worth a lot more, yet the builder could still be paying less than what they currently pay to acquire land zoned for multi-family after the zoning change. So, existing homeowners benefit and the new condos could cost less than current new builds (but if a builder can make more profit...of course they will).

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with SFH neighborhoods that don’t burden schools and roads? They are a necessary counter to density, especially with the City’s massive infrastructure issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

It seems that the existing SFH benefits through the entire homebuying process. If the current SFH will only sell for $1MM because it is zoned as SFH, but literally is worth $1.5MM overnight because a developer can now build a 4-plex...well, now you can buy that $1.25MM home for cash/minimal mortgage.

Again, am I missing something? Once the zoning changes, existing SFH owners' values will be "artificially" inflated assuming their property is actually developable into a 4-plex.

You're getting closer. In your suggestion, the SFH is newly worth $1.5M with the change. You suggest selling and taking $1.25M in cash to buy something better than what you had, but fail to realize that you'd have to spend MUCH MORE than the $1.5M.

OR...you get to pack up the life you created and move away. Otherwise, all you're buying is one of those new overpriced townhomes...because the money doesn't go as far as it once did.

Also, I don't think the increase would be artificial. It's more of a by-product of the new enhanced flexibility of the land.

I just sold my house for $1.5MM that the day before the zoning change was worth $1MM. How is it possible I have to spend MUCH MORE than $1.5MM for another house? I will agree, let's say I am moving just outside the boundary for Alexandria SFH...in theory, the house I buy there that is similar to what I just sold (let's assume the demographics of the location are the same) is cheaper because they don't get the price premium from the zoning change.

Sure, if you bought an identical home to the $1.5M one you sold, the price would be comparable. But no one does that.

In fact, your theoretical tells me you’ve never sold a home.

It sucks, so people typically don’t go through the hassle of selling just to buy a similar home in a similar neighborhood. Not unless something weird is going on—like they hate the neighbors.

Second, the answer to your question is stated in both your response and my original post. Higher prices will drive out people seeking bigger homes/affordability.

I recommend visiting Redfin or Zillow. Compare similar sized properties in Del Ray and down the parkway. Check the price per square foot. It may be helpful to you. I have a feeling you’re more of a visual person.

DP and I'm not trying to argue with you, but genuinely understand. Certainly nobody would ever expect to sell their current home and be able to but a nicer/bigger one in the same area at exactly the price you sold? That isn't how it works...ever, regardless of how anything is zoned. And that is for exactly the reasons you cite. If I bought my home at 700K and sell at 1M, I would only expect to get something comparable to my current home for that same 1M. My existing home is literally a comp. You have to spend more to get something more. I just don't see how zoning changes this for the worse.

Check out the below quote. It suggests the up zoning will cause property values and price gaps to widen at a faster pace, the crux of the declining affordability issue at hand.

You’re correct in theory. Yes, the existing home also grows in value BUT the major threat is the growing difference in price gaps between property types.

For example, a nice condo ten years ago might be a $300k price difference from a nice townhome in the same area. Now the spread is more like $500k-$700k.

Ten years ago you could get a nice Del Ray bungalow for $800k. Now it’s more like $1.6M+.

People are required to save and spend a lot more to accommodate the next stage of life. Plus rates are higher. Plus inflation. Etc.

Still not following. This issue we are discussing is a move from a house to a larger house, isn't it? In that case, the above isn't relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's this mantra on the left that if we just build more housing, prices will fall. That may be true in places like Iowa, but it is most definitely not true in D.C. There's five million people in the suburbs who will quickly sponge up any additional supply. I guess you can buy their old place in Manassas.

Isn't it ironic that many on the left have been persuaded (by the development lobby) to believe so fervently in Reagan-era supply side economic theory?! Not only are you correct on overall regional population/demand, but it's also true that the housing market is very segmented. People who are looking for a better value on a family house with a small yard aren't going to rent or buy a one bedroom plus den unit in a shiny new building in Alexandria or NW DC. They will go to Manassas or Germantown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think the price of your home is going to jump because of this, I have a bridge to sell you.

That's just something they say to placate homeowners terrified that some developer is going to build a monstrosity next door to them.

Tell yourself that, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Builders aren't nonprofits and don’t build homes at a loss. The price of building materials have skyrocketed. Windows alone cost 25% more this year.

Anything that goes up (SFH/TH/Condos) will demand a higher-than-ever before sales price that makes the builder whole and then some.

You're missing the point. The point is that builders are not going to suddenly pay a lot more to buy your house just because the zoning laws change. That's all wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this mantra on the left that if we just build more housing, prices will fall. That may be true in places like Iowa, but it is most definitely not true in D.C. There's five million people in the suburbs who will quickly sponge up any additional supply. I guess you can buy their old place in Manassas.

Isn't it ironic that many on the left have been persuaded (by the development lobby) to believe so fervently in Reagan-era supply side economic theory?! Not only are you correct on overall regional population/demand, but it's also true that the housing market is very segmented. People who are looking for a better value on a family house with a small yard aren't going to rent or buy a one bedroom plus den unit in a shiny new building in Alexandria or NW DC. They will go to Manassas or Germantown.

Oof...I may not purchase a 1BR plus den in the shiny new building, but no way in hell am I going to Manassas...or Germantown.

You need to find better examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this mantra on the left that if we just build more housing, prices will fall. That may be true in places like Iowa, but it is most definitely not true in D.C. There's five million people in the suburbs who will quickly sponge up any additional supply. I guess you can buy their old place in Manassas.

Isn't it ironic that many on the left have been persuaded (by the development lobby) to believe so fervently in Reagan-era supply side economic theory?! Not only are you correct on overall regional population/demand, but it's also true that the housing market is very segmented. People who are looking for a better value on a family house with a small yard aren't going to rent or buy a one bedroom plus den unit in a shiny new building in Alexandria or NW DC. They will go to Manassas or Germantown.

Oof...I may not purchase a 1BR plus den in the shiny new building, but no way in hell am I going to Manassas...or Germantown.

You need to find better examples.

Not everyone is a haughty, holier than thou snob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think the price of your home is going to jump because of this, I have a bridge to sell you.

That's just something they say to placate homeowners terrified that some developer is going to build a monstrosity next door to them.

Tell yourself that, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Builders aren't nonprofits and don’t build homes at a loss. The price of building materials have skyrocketed. Windows alone cost 25% more this year.

Anything that goes up (SFH/TH/Condos) will demand a higher-than-ever before sales price that makes the builder whole and then some.

This, and Alexandria is not a bubble. It’s an area close to DC and with RTO in full swing, more housing will just be picked up at higher and higher prices. Prices will not moderate because these home are inside the beltway and regardless of how some people feel about ACPS, there will be enough interested buyers who want short commutes who will keep prices escalating are largely the same pace (interest rate issues aside).

Also the ACPS issue is a big one, since the rebuilds for both GM and CK may now only be remodels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this mantra on the left that if we just build more housing, prices will fall. That may be true in places like Iowa, but it is most definitely not true in D.C. There's five million people in the suburbs who will quickly sponge up any additional supply. I guess you can buy their old place in Manassas.

Isn't it ironic that many on the left have been persuaded (by the development lobby) to believe so fervently in Reagan-era supply side economic theory?! Not only are you correct on overall regional population/demand, but it's also true that the housing market is very segmented. People who are looking for a better value on a family house with a small yard aren't going to rent or buy a one bedroom plus den unit in a shiny new building in Alexandria or NW DC. They will go to Manassas or Germantown.

Oof...I may not purchase a 1BR plus den in the shiny new building, but no way in hell am I going to Manassas...or Germantown.

You need to find better examples.

Not everyone is a haughty, holier than thou snob.

I mean, I will take North Bethesda or Gaithersburg...why are you sticking me way out in Germantown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think the price of your home is going to jump because of this, I have a bridge to sell you.

That's just something they say to placate homeowners terrified that some developer is going to build a monstrosity next door to them.

Tell yourself that, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Builders aren't nonprofits and don’t build homes at a loss. The price of building materials have skyrocketed. Windows alone cost 25% more this year.

Anything that goes up (SFH/TH/Condos) will demand a higher-than-ever before sales price that makes the builder whole and then some.

You're missing the point. The point is that builders are not going to suddenly pay a lot more to buy your house just because the zoning laws change. That's all wishful thinking.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

Isn't that what they're building across from Duncan Library on Commonwealth? Was a big lot, they tore down the house and are putting up what appear to be 3 attached duplex/condos and an ADU. Looks super affordable too.

Yeah, it is. And they are already sold. Cheapest one went for 1.4.

Saying this is about affordable housing ought to get one punched in the mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's this mantra on the left that if we just build more housing, prices will fall. That may be true in places like Iowa, but it is most definitely not true in D.C. There's five million people in the suburbs who will quickly sponge up any additional supply. I guess you can buy their old place in Manassas.

The left? Pretty sure developers and builders are on the right.

Yeah, weirdly, the left and sleazy real estate developers are indistinguishable here.

You do know th amayor screaming about affordable housing lives in a 1.5M house and has t least one rental that goes for $4000 a month right?

The dude is a hypocrite of the highest order.

[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:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

Isn't that what they're building across from Duncan Library on Commonwealth? Was a big lot, they tore down the house and are putting up what appear to be 3 attached duplex/condos and an ADU. Looks super affordable too.

Yeah, it is. And they are already sold. Cheapest one went for 1.4.

Saying this is about affordable housing ought to get one punched in the mouth.

Yep, and this is how the home was described in the prior listing. Wondering if the same developer who tricked some families in my community by saying it would be a family home bought this.

“Lovingly owned and cared for by the same family for over 50 years, this iconic home is the jewel of the Del Ray neighborhood. Located one block from the Mt Vernon shops & eateries, the address of this house is aptly numbered "1". The welcoming front entrance with double door vestibule provides a cozy greeting for friends & neighbors.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

+1 they need to fix the schools for the existing population before they bring in even more students.
It actually does impact my property value even if I chose to keep a sfh. You can’t claim that my property value won’t go down if I am now wedged in between two four-plexes and everyone is battling for street parking?
The mayor has lost his mind as far as giving developers complete leeway. An example is a development in old town, on the historic part of king. A developer (with a bad reputation) was just able to buy out of the required parking ration for $43,000. This is in a building that will have about 40 condos, and he’s now not required to do parking. It’s on a main block of king st where there is already no parking. He’s being allowed to infill the existing parking behind the current building to create more units and less parking. The projected prices for these units will begin at $700 for a one bedroom, so this is hardly affordable housing. Most of the units are 2 bedrooms and yet there will be hardly any parking. Unfair to existing neighborhoods and just idiotic

Why would your property value go down? The REASON that you would be between two four-plexes is that there would be demand for them. If you sold you would just as easily get more for your sale than you otherwise would.

You clearly know NOTHING about residential real estate. It does not work like this - it really really doesn't. Just because you **think** it does, does not make it true.

[Anonymous]

Justin Wilson is a disgrace and disaster - I can't wait to vote him out. He has done more damage our charming town than I ever imagined possible.