Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut. |
Anonymous
"People" who? Space is at a premium in cities. That's why cities have subways. Meanwhile the "fantastic bus lines" have to compete with cars for road space. If you'd like to convert lots of all-purpose lanes to bus-only lanes, that would speed the buses up considerably. |
Anonymous
If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads. Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing? |
Anonymous
They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families. |
Anonymous
How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain. |
Anonymous
Nah. Youre missing the point which os that there is little argument to be made for building more dense condos budings near metro in DC right now. |
Anonymous
| Prior to the pandemic, hours were cut, waiting times increased, and a variety of construction projects were undertaken. There were often station closures that require passengers to get off the train, transfer to a shuttle bus, get back on the train, and Petra safer to yet another train or bus or buses to complete their trip. So, Metro makes changes that negatively impact customer experiences, the , when riders decrease because of the drop in service, error decided to further decrease services. And all of that was happening BEFORE Covid was a factor. It would be really wonderful if Metro could create a usable system, perhaps with slightly longer wait times, and full length trains. If Metro would consistently provide safe and usable service, they might then find their cohort of reliable riders. I would like to be one of them. But for that, I need nighttime and weekend service. |
Anonymous
|
The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.
Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction. And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America. |
Anonymous
What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics. The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there. |
Anonymous
OK, so then the builders won't build any. They don't build stuff there's no demand for, because then they can't sell it. There, problem solved. |
Anonymous
Don't think it's quite as simple as that. |
Anonymous
"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up. Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on. It's been happening over and over and over across DC. |
Anonymous
Why not? Why would builders build something there's no market for? |
Anonymous
Nah, dude. Increasing density is just increasing density. Now, if you want to argue that dense places are attractive places that people and business like, that's fine with me. In that case, we should allow more dense places to be built. |
Anonymous
Except increasing density is like cutting taxes for rich people in the (false) hope they will then use those savings to spur the economy. Trickle-down economics never work. and there's a growing amount of scholarship that says the only people who benefit from increased housing density are privileged White people (like, say, the privileged White people who write for GGW). https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087418824672 Naturally, this scholarship is not considered by GGW types who claim (with exactly zero evidence) that housing prices will follow the same rules of supply and demand as, say, bread. |