Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

Me either! Because it actually means allowing Four unit apartment and condo buildings that take up no more space than a SFH otherwise would have.

Well done Alexandria. Proud of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

Really? What is a good basis for housing policy then? Why have any zoning restrictions on housing at all? Can I run a restaurant at my house? Is a neighbors desire to not live next to a restaurant/pet store/slaughter house legitimate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

Really? What is a good basis for housing policy then? Why have any zoning restrictions on housing at all? Can I run a restaurant at my house? Is a neighbors desire to not live next to a restaurant/pet store/slaughter house legitimate?

You're comparing a four-unit apartment building to a slaughterhouse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

Really? What is a good basis for housing policy then? Why have any zoning restrictions on housing at all? Can I run a restaurant at my house? Is a neighbors desire to not live next to a restaurant/pet store/slaughter house legitimate?

You're comparing a four-unit apartment building to a slaughterhouse?

Yes, you’re not from Alexandria are you? Why is objection of living next to a “poultry (and also rabbits) only” slaughterhouse more legitimate than objection to a four unit building with no off-street parking requirements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

Really? What is a good basis for housing policy then? Why have any zoning restrictions on housing at all? Can I run a restaurant at my house? Is a neighbors desire to not live next to a restaurant/pet store/slaughter house legitimate?

You're comparing a four-unit apartment building to a slaughterhouse?

Yes, you’re not from Alexandria are you? Why is objection of living next to a “poultry (and also rabbits) only” slaughterhouse more legitimate than objection to a four unit building with no off-street parking requirements?

Damn you, Poe's law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

One reason is that contrary to popular belief on this board, not everyone wants to live in maximum density. Some of us truly enjoy living in quiet sfh neighborhoods. Many of us lived in more dense areas at one time and made a conscious choice to move away from it.

As a personal preference, that is evidently true. (Looking aside from your "maximum density" comment, which isn't going to happen in your lifetime. Alexandria is not Singapore.) Some people don't want to have neighbors who live in multi-unit housing. But that's not a good basis for housing policy. I'm really glad to read this morning about the unanimous vote.

Really? What is a good basis for housing policy then? Why have any zoning restrictions on housing at all? Can I run a restaurant at my house? Is a neighbors desire to not live next to a restaurant/pet store/slaughter house legitimate?

You're comparing a four-unit apartment building to a slaughterhouse?

Yes, you’re not from Alexandria are you? Why is objection of living next to a “poultry (and also rabbits) only” slaughterhouse more legitimate than objection to a four unit building with no off-street parking requirements?

Damn you, Poe's law.

Hahaha

Well, good news everyone. If you don't want to change your SFH, no one is forcing you too. If you'd like your neighbors to not change theirs, then I guess you'll need to talk to them to discuss why that is and convince them not to do it.

For everyone else, now you have greater options. Yay.

[Anonymous]

At least now we get to watch the dregs on Council sweat at they slowly get priced out of town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

This is such BS. It’s not about “granny flats.” (A soothing sounding term invented for ADUs. Once legalised, the development industry then seeks to change zoning so that ADUs can be built a large as many houses and owned by investors, not owner-occupants. They are proposing this in DC).

This is about allowing apartment and condo buildings as a matter of right everywhere.

I don't live in Alexandria, but I don't have a problem with that. It's ridiculous that in large parts of every locality, the only permitted housing type is a detached house, intended for a small nuclear family, with a yard. The most expensive housing type for people, the most costly housing type for localities in terms of services, the most inefficient land use in terms of housing. Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

Me either! Because it actually means allowing Four unit apartment and condo buildings that take up no more space than a SFH otherwise would have.

Well done Alexandria. Proud of us.

For now. Phase 2 will change what you stated in paragraph 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean granny flats allowed?

Yes. And that's reallly the true intent of most of the people backing the SFH zoning chnages. They want to built an ADU, not a fourplex.

No. ADUs are already permitted in Alexandria; that change was made several years ago. They were permitted prior to this vote.

[Anonymous]

Why wasn't this put to a resident referendum?

[Anonymous]

Yet it must be protected from pollution by multi-unit housing (and the people who live in multi-unit housing)!!!!!!! Because ... well I'm not sure why. Sewer capacity, or something.

Do you live here? I have zero sewer issues, but there are serious issues with traffic and overcrowding in the schools. Until those two issues are addressed, I don't think we need to bring additional people in, no matter who they are. Once the issues above are addressed, I'm happy to have more people come in, regardless of who they are or what type of unit they live in.