"Zoning for Housing" in Alexandria -- no more SFHs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Known as missing middle in Arlington. I opposed but so far it’s been no big deal because there are caps on size, quantity, and height, and I think decent parking requirements were preserved. Also I live in N Arlington and neighbors have freaked out and gotten developers to stop townhouse plans and revert to SFH plans. In south Arlington, it will be more prevalent, compounding the existing issues with school overcrowding, parking, and space in general. It’s ok though, wealthy people will do option schools or lottery, and eventually leave the area, once again voting for and creating a problematic situation and then leaving the area.

DP. Also in North Arlington. My biggest gripe is that so far the housing that has been built have been mostly rentals. I assume that is going to be what happens in Alexandria as well. I’m not opposed to rentals but I think it’s unethical for proponents to sell these things as expanding homeownership opportunities

Yeah I agree with this. But fortunately not too many people have jumped on the bandwagon. I am wondering if missing middle is actually more lucrative than other, easier real estate investments.

[Anonymous]

Whatever house/condo/apartment you live in…a developer built. I’m so puzzled as so why they are some kind of boogeymen. Developers build homes kind of by definition? And we do need homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever house/condo/apartment you live in…a developer built. I’m so puzzled as so why they are some kind of boogeymen. Developers build homes kind of by definition? And we do need homes?

I am not overly upset about this, but homes built for sale are different than apartments built for rental. I don’t mind if homeowners move in next door, but generally renters are less invested in the property and neighborhood. I don’t mind saying that, I think it’s pretty well-known. This isn’t true in all cases, but it’s true in many.

[Anonymous]

^^^ just to clarify, I’m fine if they put a townhouse next door and people buy the units. I would be less thrilled with rentals.

[Anonymous]

We are almost by definition not talking about large complexes here though - the largest rental units that might end up next door to a SFH under this plan is a 4-plex. That's probably a homeowner in one unit renting out other units.

There are things like commercial conversions in parts of Zoning for Housing - but that's not next to SFH.

[Anonymous]

^^ and again, the 4-plex, if allowed, has to basically have the same footprint of what a SFH/mcmansion would otherwise take up. No change in allowable footprint.

[Anonymous]

Solid factual information about the proposals can be found here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ and again, the 4-plex, if allowed, has to basically have the same footprint of what a SFH/mcmansion would otherwise take up. No change in allowable footprint.

But I’m not concerned about the footprint. If someone wants to put up a 4 plex of condos and sell them, great. The rentals in my current neighborhood are party houses. I would hate to live next door to that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be wary.

[Anonymous]

Do you have 4-plex rentals? Or are you talking about big complexes? Big complexes I could see that... but I've got a 4-plex behind me in this style (Del Ray built when zoning allowed this) and it's absolutely indistinguishable from any other SFH except the 4 mailboxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have 4-plex rentals? Or are you talking about big complexes? Big complexes I could see that... but I've got a 4-plex behind me in this style (Del Ray built when zoning allowed this) and it's absolutely indistinguishable from any other SFH except the 4 mailboxes.

I’m talking about single family homes that are rented out. The landlord doesn’t live there and uses the homes as investment properties. I would hate to multiply that by 4- just being honest!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ and again, the 4-plex, if allowed, has to basically have the same footprint of what a SFH/mcmansion would otherwise take up. No change in allowable footprint.

This is not true. ZFH will make it a lot easier to get variances for height and setback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The majority of the city of alexandria is apartments and condos so this whole idea is asinine.

What percentage of the land in Alexandria is zoned for SFH? Not a majority, but I'm guessing over 30%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are almost by definition not talking about large complexes here though - the largest rental units that might end up next door to a SFH under this plan is a 4-plex. That's probably a homeowner in one unit renting out other units.

There are things like commercial conversions in parts of Zoning for Housing - but that's not next to SFH.

Unless they limit it, it'll be corporate owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Solid factual information about the proposals can be found here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b

OMG! They're estimating almost 200 new units!

"Estimated Unit Yield: Approximately 150-178 units over 10 years on 66 parcels."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solid factual information about the proposals can be found here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b

OMG! They're estimating almost 200 new units!

"Estimated Unit Yield: Approximately 150-178 units over 10 years on 66 parcels."

Not a big deal unless you get stuck living next to one. Of course, once there is one in the neighborhood there will be more as SFH values near it decline and developers grab the next to build another. You might even make some money if you have a home in need of renovations or that hasn’t been enlarged in decades….that will be the developers bread and butter.

Own a SFH home there? Enjoy your new 12 neighbors and their dogs and cars. Bonus: fewer off street parking requirements, additional traffic, and school crowding.