Missing middle- Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

DP, but also a homeowner in 22207. I'm a supporter of MM. All the old houses in my neighborhood were already being torn down and replaced with mcmansions, so having big buildings taking up lots won't be any change. My property values are not going to decline any time soon. And if they do, so be it. I have young adult children who are going to need to live somewhere.

Plus my block already has two older 4-plexes on it. And it's fine. Most of the residents are young people without children or dogs. But I dont care if they do.

Why should your young adult children deserve to live in an area when they haven’t worked hard enough to earn it yet? That mentality makes absolutely no sense. They’re entitled to an area because their parents are there?

I lived in Arlington in my early 20s. The supply of housing has not kept up with population growth. We need more housing. This is a way to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

DP, but also a homeowner in 22207. I'm a supporter of MM. All the old houses in my neighborhood were already being torn down and replaced with mcmansions, so having big buildings taking up lots won't be any change. My property values are not going to decline any time soon. And if they do, so be it. I have young adult children who are going to need to live somewhere.

Plus my block already has two older 4-plexes on it. And it's fine. Most of the residents are young people without children or dogs. But I dont care if they do.

Why should your young adult children deserve to live in an area when they haven’t worked hard enough to earn it yet? That mentality makes absolutely no sense. They’re entitled to an area because their parents are there?

I lived in Arlington in my early 20s. The supply of housing has not kept up with population growth. We need more housing. This is a way to get it.

I did too …in an apartment! Then I worked hard to buy my first small house, worked even longer and harder, sold that house and bought a bigger one. I was not entitled and thought I deserved to be able to buy a house when I was 20 something in Arlington. Can you imagine 20 something struggling actors thinking they should be able to buy a home in Beverly Hills? Some people have really lost touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in 22207 and don’t care about this. All the 1960s homes that go on the market are bought by developers, torn down, and replaced with $2m McMansions that cover the whole lot. Replacing those with townhomes isn’t going to ruin the neighborhood.

The council could have rezoned for five-story apartment buildings, eliminated parking requirements, and forced developers to include subsidized units. I’m grateful they did none of that. This is a fairly moderate solution all things considered.

NP here. I wish the units weren’t inevitably going to end up rentals, but I’m also excited to get something other than ridiculously oversized $2m+ McMansions. Honestly, these giant 6+ bedroom homes are just hideous and I don’t want all my neighbors to be big law partners. Tearing down all the old housing stock and replacing it with homes larger than the average household needs is also just not sustainable nor a good use of limited land.

I would have liked MM to be a bit more tailored (no more than a triplex to avoid ending up with a glut of 1-2 bedroom rentals) and maybe even a limit on renting it for the first decade so that it has to go to an owner occupant. I’d love for there to be more starter homes around me for young families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

DP, but also a homeowner in 22207. I'm a supporter of MM. All the old houses in my neighborhood were already being torn down and replaced with mcmansions, so having big buildings taking up lots won't be any change. My property values are not going to decline any time soon. And if they do, so be it. I have young adult children who are going to need to live somewhere.

Plus my block already has two older 4-plexes on it. And it's fine. Most of the residents are young people without children or dogs. But I dont care if they do.

Why should your young adult children deserve to live in an area when they haven’t worked hard enough to earn it yet? That mentality makes absolutely no sense. They’re entitled to an area because their parents are there?

I lived in Arlington in my early 20s. The supply of housing has not kept up with population growth. We need more housing. This is a way to get it.

Is this actually true? My friend was apartment hunting in Arlington recently, and there were tons of available units in every building. And it seems like there are more giant apartment buildings still getting built. However, the prices for many of these units are probably out of reach to many people. Not clear that it will be any better with this 6-plexes. They're not rent controlled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Anyone who bought a SFH in Arlington for a quiet, peaceful street free from density was delusional. I bought a SFH here (N Arlington) in 2018 and have always known that the county wanted more density. The density is part of what gets us all the amenities around here. If you want quiet and no cars/people on the streets, move outside the beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

Yes, I am an owner. I will address your points in turn.

(1) Property value growth: I don't see how this decreases my property value. My house likely will be a teardown in any event (it's a perfectly nice house, that's just the way the wind is blowing). A developer will pay more to build more. And if I time the sale when a next-door neighbor sells, even better.

(2) Cars, children, dogs: Many of my current neighbors have more cars than people living in the house, despite the fact that my house is near public transportation. By contrast, a young couple who just moved into the neighborhood share a car. Young couples are the likelier demographic for multi-family, so I don't see there being vastly more cars. Only time will tell how Gen Z approaches parenthood (I can see 2 of my 3 children choosing to forgo parenthood), so the children aspect is a question mark. There will definitely be more dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

And sometimes you buy a house and then a hoarder moves next door. Neighborhoods aren’t frozen in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Anyone who bought a SFH in Arlington for a quiet, peaceful street free from density was delusional. I bought a SFH here (N Arlington) in 2018 and have always known that the county wanted more density. The density is part of what gets us all the amenities around here. If you want quiet and no cars/people on the streets, move outside the beltway.

Agree. I’m a McMansion owner, I guess. I don’t think it’s my right to live in a major metropolitan area, next to our nation’s capitol, and walkable to transit (most if not all neighborhoods are near a bus line) without neighbors in multi-family housing. I would prefer these units to be owner-occupied, but that outcome can’t be legislated. So here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

I bought a SFH in Arlington in 2008 because it was more urban than other nearby areas. I wanted something walkable and near transit. I actually don't know many people who moved to Arlington for "quiet." People looking for quiet and privacy tend to move further out IME.

I would love it if increased density led to better restaurants and shopping on Langston Blvd in Cherrydale. Fingers crossed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

Yes, I am an owner. I will address your points in turn.

(1) Property value growth: I don't see how this decreases my property value. My house likely will be a teardown in any event (it's a perfectly nice house, that's just the way the wind is blowing). A developer will pay more to build more. And if I time the sale when a next-door neighbor sells, even better.

(2) Cars, children, dogs: Many of my current neighbors have more cars than people living in the house, despite the fact that my house is near public transportation. By contrast, a young couple who just moved into the neighborhood share a car. Young couples are the likelier demographic for multi-family, so I don't see there being vastly more cars. Only time will tell how Gen Z approaches parenthood (I can see 2 of my 3 children choosing to forgo parenthood), so the children aspect is a question mark. There will definitely be more dogs.

Neither of my Arlington-raised 20- something children own cars. I agree that the priorities of young people have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

Yes, I am an owner. I will address your points in turn.

(1) Property value growth: I don't see how this decreases my property value. My house likely will be a teardown in any event (it's a perfectly nice house, that's just the way the wind is blowing). A developer will pay more to build more. And if I time the sale when a next-door neighbor sells, even better.

(2) Cars, children, dogs: Many of my current neighbors have more cars than people living in the house, despite the fact that my house is near public transportation. By contrast, a young couple who just moved into the neighborhood share a car. Young couples are the likelier demographic for multi-family, so I don't see there being vastly more cars. Only time will tell how Gen Z approaches parenthood (I can see 2 of my 3 children choosing to forgo parenthood), so the children aspect is a question mark. There will definitely be more dogs.

I like you. I hope I know you IRL. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in 22207 and don’t care about this. All the 1960s homes that go on the market are bought by developers, torn down, and replaced with $2m McMansions that cover the whole lot. Replacing those with townhomes isn’t going to ruin the neighborhood.

The council could have rezoned for five-story apartment buildings, eliminated parking requirements, and forced developers to include subsidized units. I’m grateful they did none of that. This is a fairly moderate solution all things considered.

NP here. I wish the units weren’t inevitably going to end up rentals, but I’m also excited to get something other than ridiculously oversized $2m+ McMansions. Honestly, these giant 6+ bedroom homes are just hideous and I don’t want all my neighbors to be big law partners. Tearing down all the old housing stock and replacing it with homes larger than the average household needs is also just not sustainable nor a good use of limited land.

I would have liked MM to be a bit more tailored (no more than a triplex to avoid ending up with a glut of 1-2 bedroom rentals) and maybe even a limit on renting it for the first decade so that it has to go to an owner occupant. I’d love for there to be more starter homes around me for young families.

Some of us built these homes because that was what the code incentivized as the maximum way to make a profit. And that’s what the MM developers will do. I just wanted to point that out. The McMansion is a natural result of the former code and the EHO changes will also lead to people maximizing profit on a particular parcel. There’s nothing immoral about a McMansion and the EHOs will look the same, scale-wise.