The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

For the folks who want density what is your vision of how neighborhoods like Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park will look like in 20 years?

What about DuPont Circle, Petworth and Shaw?

[Anonymous]

Increasing density is never going to make any difference in housing prices. The number of people who want to live in the city far, far outstrips the number of housing units that could ever be added.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is never going to make any difference in housing prices. The number of people who want to live in the city far, far outstrips the number of housing units that could ever be added.

Increasing density will reduce the quality of life for people who do live here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Again, I never said anything about a conspiracy. You are the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies. You don’t seem to dispute the actual numbers or the impact that delivering those units faster would have in lowering prices. You also don’t dispute that it’s not in developers’ interests for prices to fall. Whether the depth of the pipeline is similar to recent years doesn’t really matter, though the fact that it is similar means that it’s been a long time since anyone other than developers has had the greatest impact on supply and that NIMBYs aren’t the first-order threat to affordable housing that you make them out to be.

That’s a lot of words to admit that you’ve never heard of warehousing.

I’ve heard of it. It’s one of the practices that public policy should seek to punish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Again, I never said anything about a conspiracy. You are the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies. You don’t seem to dispute the actual numbers or the impact that delivering those units faster would have in lowering prices. You also don’t dispute that it’s not in developers’ interests for prices to fall. Whether the depth of the pipeline is similar to recent years doesn’t really matter, though the fact that it is similar means that it’s been a long time since anyone other than developers has had the greatest impact on supply and that NIMBYs aren’t the first-order threat to affordable housing that you make them out to be.

Simply wrong lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Again, I never said anything about a conspiracy. You are the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies. You don’t seem to dispute the actual numbers or the impact that delivering those units faster would have in lowering prices. You also don’t dispute that it’s not in developers’ interests for prices to fall. Whether the depth of the pipeline is similar to recent years doesn’t really matter, though the fact that it is similar means that it’s been a long time since anyone other than developers has had the greatest impact on supply and that NIMBYs aren’t the first-order threat to affordable housing that you make them out to be.

Simply wrong lol.

LOL it's only wrong if you think developers are lying in planning applications or committing securities fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the folks who want density what is your vision of how neighborhoods like Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park will look like in 20 years?

What about DuPont Circle, Petworth and Shaw?

Cleveland Park likely won't look dramatically different, since it is a historic district and there is only so much opportunity for some infill (Adas Israel and the gas station) or some pop-ups.

Chevy Chae, DC could have some new infill where the library/Community Center is located, as well as all of those useless surface parking lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the folks who want density what is your vision of how neighborhoods like Chevy Chase DC, Cleveland Park will look like in 20 years?

What about DuPont Circle, Petworth and Shaw?

Cleveland Park likely won't look dramatically different, since it is a historic district and there is only so much opportunity for some infill (Adas Israel and the gas station) or some pop-ups.

Chevy Chae, DC could have some new infill where the library/Community Center is located, as well as all of those useless surface parking lots.

Pretty sure Safeway and CVS don’t consider their parking lots useless. Maybe you should talk to business owners first before firing up Sim City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remote work will change and has changed much. No commute. Live in the cheaper suburbs.

Terrific. Then there's no reason to spend billions and billions on widening highways, building new highways, and building new bridges.

Meanwhile, however, people who do remote work will still go places. Grocery stores, doctors' offices, schools. How will they get there?

You’re an idiot. I live in the suburbs and have 7 grocery stores, 3 high schools, and 10 doctors offices within 5 minutes from my house. But you know what I don’t have to do? Drive into THE CITY to go to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remote work will change and has changed much. No commute. Live in the cheaper suburbs.

Terrific. Then there's no reason to spend billions and billions on widening highways, building new highways, and building new bridges.

Meanwhile, however, people who do remote work will still go places. Grocery stores, doctors' offices, schools. How will they get there?

You’re an idiot. I live in the suburbs and have 7 grocery stores, 3 high schools, and 10 doctors offices within 5 minutes from my house. But you know what I don’t have to do? Drive into THE CITY to go to work.

7 grocery stores, 3 high schools, and 10 doctors offices within a 5 minute walk of your house? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, I have little issues with most "urbanist" concepts or policy suggestions, but I have noticed that over the past couple of years that many self proclaimed urbanists have swarmed upon every single bit of social media, both nationally and locally, in the most obsessive, vile troll behavior that I have not seen since the 2016 election. It's like 4 chan gamers got bored and transformed into urbanists.

What amazes me is that most of them are grown ups with master degrees and professional jobs. Some are even professors and government employees. Which also makes me wonder how they do their jobs since they seemingly are the internet 24/7.

It is awful how they will descend upon certain posts, even by the most random person, then berate them for having an opinion that differs from their own. While all the while, creating a cringing circle jerk of how wonderful they are and how horrible that everyone else is.

The internet being the internet is one thing, but many of these people have managed to weed their way into political circles. I have no idea how deep their influence is with our local politicians, but we should all be concerned that people as ravenous as this have any influence on public policy. It's as if greater greater washington has become Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto and anyone who gets in their way are to be eliminated.

Do these people even look at the way they behave for one second? Especially since they deem themselves to paragons of virtue?

The internet has brought out a ton of narcissists, especially anonymous forums. People with who think a lot of themselves often end up in politics. The politicians who are truly there to make a difference? You can tell who they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. There are many others besides the one they listed. All the attention goes to more housing, more affordable housing, and more housing. Destroying suburbs, turning them into urban areas, because we need more housing. Some of us moved to the suburbs because we like the suburbs. And, we are labeled bigots and racists for saying so.

Yup. And you’ll notice the dense housing going up here in the burbs is anything BUT affordable!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you proviso some examples of what you are referring to?

OP here. Some national examples:

https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1424992365102583809

https://twitter.com/yhdistyminen?lang=en

Some local examples:

https://twitter.com/MoCoMikeE/status/1425193289343553536

https://twitter.com/graykimbrough/status/1424742263851192330

It's one thing to have a perspective. It's another thing to stalk a little blog about the history of Silver Spring. The poor guy just wanted to create a space to share local history, but apparently he is Goebbels, ergo he must be attacked and eliminated.

You would think that a college professor would have more important things to do with his time, but apparently not.

I'm active in a historical society, and we don't take positions on future population growth or fast food. We also make an effort to convey the complete history of our area. Also, our social media people know better than to go rogue.

Do you even hear yourself? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. There are many others besides the one they listed. All the attention goes to more housing, more affordable housing, and more housing. Destroying suburbs, turning them into urban areas, because we need more housing. Some of us moved to the suburbs because we like the suburbs. And, we are labeled bigots and racists for saying so.

Yup. And you’ll notice the dense housing going up here in the burbs is anything BUT affordable!

Which "dense housing going up here in the burbs" are you referring to, specifically? Also, is it "destroying" the suburbs, and if so, how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Progressives won't be happy until the US is transformed into Soviet style bloc style housing. No one needs SFHs according to them. Neighborhoods w SFHs should be razed and demolished to make way for super sense govt built bloc housing.

Remember when Obama told us that we didn’t need that huge house, then bought himself….a huge house?