Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[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.

+1 I love this person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP...are you a senior executive of a PE firm that owns thousands of SFHs that you rent out? Just wondering what makes you the residential R/E expert.

[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.

Home value increases will be incremental. No one said everyone got a $200k bump overnight. Also, builders don’t purchase homes unless the particular property is in need of updating or demolition. There has to be an opportunity to improve and profit. They aren’t your standard buyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Worm is the name that comes to mind.

[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.

Honest question- what are you doing in this thread? Are you a peeping Tom from Western Fairfax or are you an Alexandrian with a side?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

[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.

PP you are replying to; I had no idea they were already sold. I imagine that construction is just the beginning of what is to come. Demand is for giant, expensive TH/duplexes, and people will pay. The demand is never going away. It just isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Are those 45 flavors of Ice Cream necessary, though?

Which is better for the environment, a dense urban area surrounded by green space, or suburban sprawl that extends to the horizon and beyond?

[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:

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.

PP you are replying to; I had no idea they were already sold. I imagine that construction is just the beginning of what is to come. Demand is for giant, expensive TH/duplexes, and people will pay. The demand is never going away. It just isn't.

All the more reason to protect the older, SFH historic houses in Del Ray. Imagine if Savannah, Ga started allowing the destruction of homes to accomodate POS builder grade, trash to infill the dowtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Your second point is off. Green space and rain filtration, fine, could be better but not worth arguing.

But lawns absolutely do NOT provide wildlife and plant habitat. They are practically devoid of life, and certainly devoid of native species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Are those 45 flavors of Ice Cream necessary, though?

Which is better for the environment, a dense urban area surrounded by green space, or suburban sprawl that extends to the horizon and beyond?

Alexandria will never be suburban sprawl. What part of housing discussions in this country is guided by "necessity?" Why not just build Communist apartment buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Are those 45 flavors of Ice Cream necessary, though?

Which is better for the environment, a dense urban area surrounded by green space, or suburban sprawl that extends to the horizon and beyond?

Alexandria will never be suburban sprawl. What part of housing discussions in this country is guided by "necessity?" Why not just build Communist apartment buildings?

Eh? All those exclusively "SFH neighborhoods" in Alexandria are suburban sprawl. What do you think suburban sprawl is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Are those 45 flavors of Ice Cream necessary, though?

Which is better for the environment, a dense urban area surrounded by green space, or suburban sprawl that extends to the horizon and beyond?

Alexandria will never be suburban sprawl. What part of housing discussions in this country is guided by "necessity?" Why not just build Communist apartment buildings?

Eh? All those exclusively "SFH neighborhoods" in Alexandria are suburban sprawl. What do you think suburban sprawl is?

DP. Yes. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why are they a necessary counter to density?

1. The same reason Giant sells 45 different flavors of Ice Cream. People like different things.

2. All these 'terrible' lawns we have provide green space, wildlife and plant habitat, and rain water filtration. Would you rather be in Roslyn or Charles Hill Park on a 95F day?

DP, btw.

Are those 45 flavors of Ice Cream necessary, though?

Which is better for the environment, a dense urban area surrounded by green space, or suburban sprawl that extends to the horizon and beyond?

Alexandria will never be suburban sprawl. What part of housing discussions in this country is guided by "necessity?" Why not just build Communist apartment buildings?

Eh? All those exclusively "SFH neighborhoods" in Alexandria are suburban sprawl. What do you think suburban sprawl is?

DP. Yes. Do you?

I guess those neighborhoods of 80ish year old homes are equivalent to Ryan Homes in your mind. It is disingenuous to imply that Del Ray and North Ridge are suburban sprawl.