The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Thank you for your insightful contribution to the argument. I truly learned a lot from the information in your post.

[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.

These people honestly think there are no jobs in the DC suburbs. It’s hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

DP. I'm a Gen-X-er who owns a uniplex and supports changing zoning regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

What an ugly post. "F**k you, got mine! And I'm going to make fun of something I don't understand, too!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

DP. I'm a Gen-X-er who owns a uniplex and supports changing zoning regulations.

Uniplex? Is that what you people call a home? That’s kinda sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

DP. I'm a Gen-X-er who owns a uniplex and supports changing zoning regulations.

Uniplex? Is that what you people call a home? That’s kinda sad.

Actually what's sad is the belief that "home" and "single family detached house" are synonyms. As though people who live in other types of housing didn't live in homes, and weren't "homeowners" even if they own the unit they live in.

[Anonymous]

“ Actually what's sad is the belief that "home" and "single family detached house" are synonyms. As though people who live in other types of housing didn't live in homes, and weren't "homeowners" even if they own the unit they live in.”


Some of my best friends live in apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.