Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

That’s exactly the price of a new build TH.

It’s the price of a four-story 3,000 square foot townhouse. Ot a three-story townhome that’s half to two-thirds the size.

First off, that’s an exaggeration. Second, there is nothing that stops builders from going smaller. The build what they do because that’s what the market wants.

PP here. A typo may have obscured my point that the giant townhouses we see getting built right now wouldn’t fit within the envelope required for missing middle. They’d need to be shorter and smaller overall. And therefore cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

Which makes it less likely that a developer would take that risk because there would be less upside.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

That’s exactly the price of a new build TH.

It’s the price of a four-story 3,000 square foot townhouse. Ot a three-story townhome that’s half to two-thirds the size.

First off, that’s an exaggeration. Second, there is nothing that stops builders from going smaller. The build what they do because that’s what the market wants.

PP here. A typo may have obscured my point that the giant townhouses we see getting built right now wouldn’t fit within the envelope required for missing middle. They’d need to be shorter and smaller overall. And therefore cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

That’s exactly the price of a new build TH.

It’s the price of a four-story 3,000 square foot townhouse. Ot a three-story townhome that’s half to two-thirds the size.

First off, that’s an exaggeration. Second, there is nothing that stops builders from going smaller. The build what they do because that’s what the market wants.

PP here. A typo may have obscured my point that the giant townhouses we see getting built right now wouldn’t fit within the envelope required for missing middle. They’d need to be shorter and smaller overall. And therefore cheaper.

which makes it less likely it will get built because lower price means less profit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

That’s exactly the price of a new build TH.

It’s the price of a four-story 3,000 square foot townhouse. Ot a three-story townhome that’s half to two-thirds the size.

First off, that’s an exaggeration. Second, there is nothing that stops builders from going smaller. The build what they do because that’s what the market wants.

PP here. A typo may have obscured my point that the giant townhouses we see getting built right now wouldn’t fit within the envelope required for missing middle. They’d need to be shorter and smaller overall. And therefore cheaper.

which makes it less likely it will get built because lower price means less profit

And yet, still often more profitable than a McMansion.

[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 think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

That’s exactly the price of a new build TH.

It’s the price of a four-story 3,000 square foot townhouse. Ot a three-story townhome that’s half to two-thirds the size.

First off, that’s an exaggeration. Second, there is nothing that stops builders from going smaller. The build what they do because that’s what the market wants.

PP here. A typo may have obscured my point that the giant townhouses we see getting built right now wouldn’t fit within the envelope required for missing middle. They’d need to be shorter and smaller overall. And therefore cheaper.

which makes it less likely it will get built because lower price means less profit

And yet, still often more profitable than a McMansion.

Sorry but no.

[Anonymous]

I get confused by those gigantic three-story Toll Brothers townhouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

Ah, so families with children actually do live in middle-type housing? Well, well.

There were a bunch in Fairlington and Shirlington when I was a high schooler at Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

But if you could put 3 of them on the lot … even if they’re worth $1m each, now developers can build $3m worth of housing where a $2m McMansion would have been built. As a current owner, I would absolutely expect to benefit from some of that profit if I were to sell.

[Anonymous]

^^ Sorry and to clarify by “the new homes” I meant the new McMansions will also be worth more. Basically price increases in older SFHs will push up prices for newer SFHs. That was in response to the PP arguing that it makes no sense for developers to bid up the lots that the McMansions are on. I was trying to articulate that the developments don’t have to bid up the prices on the new/larger homes, they will go up in price simply as a matter of real estate prices increasing as a whole.

I realize in retrospect I didn’t word that very clearly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the title is supposed to be "Boomers and Real Estate Developers plan to ruin Arlington"

Or

"Missing Middle: in ARL you need 1.5 for an MM unit"

It’s boomers who seem to be most against missing middle.

What costs more: a $500,000 condo in a six plex, or a fancy new $2,000,000 Mcmansion?

I am fascinated that you think this is how it’s going to play out. What do you think that $2m house is going to be worth once it is upzoned? You think current property owners are going to leave money on the table and hand it over to developers to profit?

Somewhere between $2.05m to $2.1m. Because it makes no sense for developers to bid each other up when there are so many other lots they could buy instead.

NP here. I have a nicely renovated (within the past 3 years) 4 BR/ 3 BA home in N Arlington. Based on comps I’m guessing it is worth around $1.2. Of that about 800-900k is land value. If a development can now built 3 THs on my lot, I’m guessing the land value will go up at least somewhat. So I would now expect to sell my home for, let’s say $1.4-1.5 in coming years. The new homes will therefore also be worth more.

That last part doesn’t follow because any new missing middle homes on the property will, also, be based on comps. Even a new 1,600 square foot townhouse ain’t getting $1.4 m.

But if you could put 3 of them on the lot … even if they’re worth $1m each, now developers can build $3m worth of housing where a $2m McMansion would have been built. As a current owner, I would absolutely expect to benefit from some of that profit if I were to sell.

Just because they can build three, even using your assumptions, it doesn’t not equal $1 million of additional profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Nobody buys up a bunch of small eggs to rent them out. Not a great eggsample.

It’s a fantastic example of YIMBY “thought” and “analysis.”

To them it makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Nobody buys up a bunch of small eggs to rent them out. Not a great eggsample.

It’s a fantastic example of YIMBY “thought” and “analysis.”

To them it makes perfect sense.

It seems that some reality is smacking the Arlington YIMBYs in the face…caps and tighter parameters being included. These all need to be included in whatever fantasy ZTA that MoCo eventually comes up with.

https://dcist.com/story/23/01/26/arlington-missing-middle-housing-vote/?fbclid=IwAR147Xrw73Sl3PBP95KYdZr-bvhzYSk9F2alIKvuHO6LKyJydEyhIKG6ggY

[Anonymous]

The economics of this is that building more housing in Arlington is going to reduce prices in Montgomery County and DC. The notion that all of the supply effects in one close in DC suburb will be captured by that suburb is laughable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The economics of this is that building more housing in Arlington is going to reduce prices in Montgomery County and DC. The notion that all of the supply effects in one close in DC suburb will be captured by that suburb is laughable

No. Moco Bethesda and FX will go up if North ARL gets 3-6 units auto available with NO review for all lots now zoned SFH. ARL has just done sloppy work. SFH removed at 8th and veitch was replaced by 7 huge townhouses. MM sticks it at 6. That lot could have been 12 smaller units with greenspace. By the book MM ignores the actual potential etc for any given lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The economics of this is that building more housing in Arlington is going to reduce prices in Montgomery County and DC. The notion that all of the supply effects in one close in DC suburb will be captured by that suburb is laughable

No. Moco Bethesda and FX will go up if North ARL gets 3-6 units auto available with NO review for all lots now zoned SFH. ARL has just done sloppy work. SFH removed at 8th and veitch was replaced by 7 huge townhouses. MM sticks it at 6. That lot could have been 12 smaller units with greenspace. By the book MM ignores the actual potential etc for any given lot.

MoCo is stupid, so I suspect they will be the next to follow suit. But Fairfax doesn’t do this nonsense. They don’t give their roads over to bike lanes. They don’t close roads for “streeteries”. They don’t do “missing middle”. They are not about these fads. They are also the most affluent county in the area with the highest growth of high wage private sector jobs.