We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is honestly idiotic. If middle income people won’t live in duplexes they can’t live in dense urban housing. You can’t “policy” your way into affordable SFH in close-in urban areas.

People in NYC already know this. The rest of the country apparently is too stupid to get it.

Exactly. I am so, so tired of these people.

The only way for their to be "affordable homes" is for the government to build and subsidize them. If you are not advocating that, then all of these policy "reforms" are just nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable housing, but also middle-income ones, and even luxury homes. I agree with virtually every word of Hayley Bonsteel’s excellent piece for The Urbanist titled “How to Finetune Rep. Macri’s Single-Family Rezone Bill.” I have long been opposed to single-family zoning (not housing), for a number reasons but largely because of its malicious history. Bonsteel is correct in that we must return to our abundant housing roots.

However, abolishing single-family zoning will barely move the needle on our housing crisis. We can’t duplex and triplex our way out of this—though it’s a good step since we do need more diverse types of housing, and rapidly. The decades long fight just to add, and then liberalize accessory dwelling units, or re-legalize duplexes and small apartments in now single-family zones, will pale in comparison to the needed shift.

We sit at the threshold of a decades long housing crisis, and a steepening climate crisis (one our mayor seems wholly unprepared to take on). The region includes some of the smartest and most sophisticated companies in the world, but rather than come to terms with the depth of the scale of this crisis, we put on blinders.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/01/29/housing-action-on-a-truly-massive-scale/

(2020)

About Seattle, but every word applies to the DC area EXCEPT that Seattle is farther along on zoning reform than we are.

We first need to upzone single family home lots.
That means Takoma Park. And Bethesda. And Ward 3 DC. Allow duplexes, triplexes, pop ups, and ADUs.

Then we need even more homes than that.

And if we don’t do all these things, average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

So many affordable homes in NE, SE, pg county-many are on the metro or Marc lines! What We need are good schools.

If we want to improve the lives of the poor and lower income residents, lets spend money improving their neighborhoods, from schools, infrastructure, parks, etc.

This is what fascinates me. ALL of the focus on this stuff is promoting more investment in already rich areas. When people say "we need density in Bethesda or Ward 3", what they are actually saying is that they want more investment in Bethesda or Ward 3.

What should really be the focus is improving and promoting development in Ward 8, Aspen Hill and Wheaton. It seems odd to try and encourage people to not invest in these areas and instead move to Bethesda or Ward 3 or wherever which will initiate a negative feedback loop.

Just ask PG County, they would gladly love to have all of this investment and they spend alot of their energy trying to figure out how to encourage more investment.

The politics of this is all so backwards to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think all of the townhomes, pseudo townhomes, and condos are? That’s middle housing and DMV is an outlier that it is actually building it.

What you socialists forget though is the market. Many don’t want to live with shared walls and overcrowded streets, far from jobs. At least not at the minimum price point that these things can be built for. That’s why there is a lack of housing at an entry level.

That and starter homes are a terrible investment and for condos basically entrapment.

In other areas, when home prices exceed what the majority of the market can pay, developers are building smaller to meet the price point.

Again it’s the market. Not just zoning, which is relatively permissive when it comes to density around here.

Never mind you or anyone else can buy in Anacostia right now. Super affordable. The problem is everything else, like safety and schools. Not zoning.

"Single-family homes take up a lot of space in the District"


https://ggwash.org/view/71576/heres-how-much-of-dcs-housing-consists-of-single-family-homes

This image is either poorly designed or intetionally manipulative. If they changed the color of "Coop/Conversion" from violet to another color it would tell a much different story. Very, very little of DC is freestanding SFM. It is so stupid to argue otherwise.

There are also tons of townhomes in MoCo, like tons. They are everywhere and new ones are being built all of the time. The only way to miss them is to intentionally do so. They are unaffordable, just like a brownstone in Manhattan or Brooklyn is unaffordable. Big city living is expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many cities here have ADU ordinances already. Do you know why they aren’t being built? The market, even the investor market which ironically would shut out new owners, won’t support it.

Even somewhat off the hook, you’re talking about a custom house, $150K, for a studio or studio plus, that may only rent for $1,200 a month. That’s a CAP rate of about 9%, but pretty average or even below average for Class B or worse property.

Easier than that is an index fund. Less risk, less work, more liquidity, and I don’t have to deal with landlord issues. That’s in an area that respects property rights. DC? Forget about it. I’d want at least 12% to make it worth my wild, and then no other issues, but at that point I’ll still take easy.

That’s why certain homes aren’t built. Everyone “needs” to get at least 4-8% off the deal, and if they don’t, it doesn’t happen and many don’t.

Sorry, this is wrong. We're not talking about building tiny mini-houses adjacent to one SFH. Although in some cases this might help, it's not upzoning.
First the true parts: yes, index funds (over the last 10 years when the market went up 5+% per year) are often better investments than RE. But they're uncorrelated and RE can help diversity a portfolio.

Onto the rest:

What we need is BY-RIGHT construction of 3-6 dwelling units on SFH-zoned lots. And, by-right, allow building higher: 4-8 stories. Yes, owners will hate this. You will hate it! NIMBYs will hate it. But it's the only way to increase housing units in DC.

I hesitate to engage your flawed economic analysis, but I will, briefly: take a $1.2 M SFH and lot. A developer buys it. Builds 6 units over 6 stories on that lot. Sells each for $500,000. Total revenue: $3M. Capital cost: 1.2M. Construction cost: say $1.5M. Profit for owner: $300k. Prices for other units in DC then go down because demand slightly decreases.

This is simple.

And the residents who SFHs do not want your units as a neighbor, which is why they bought SFHs in a neighborhood of SFHs. Lets stop destroying SFH neighborhoods. Your sole goal is to benefit developers, particularly small time developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is honestly idiotic. If middle income people won’t live in duplexes they can’t live in dense urban housing. You can’t “policy” your way into affordable SFH in close-in urban areas.

People in NYC already know this. The rest of the country apparently is too stupid to get it.

Exactly. I am so, so tired of these people.

The only way for their to be "affordable homes" is for the government to build and subsidize them. If you are not advocating that, then all of these policy "reforms" are just nonsense.

We are middle income. We are happy to live in a duplex or a condo. The problem we are having is finding a condo that is over 800 sq ft we can afford. There are larger condos but they are out of our price range. I wish condo developers would consider that families would want to live in one and increase the size just a bit to 1000 or 1200 sq ft and instead of 2BR do more 3BR.

There is also the issue with condo fees. High rise have high condo fees and often those fees are equal to the mortgage and at that point, the monthly mortgage plus condo fee can still price people out of the market or make them continue looking for a non-condo. Maybe instead of higher condo fees, local govts could help condo boards establish some of their units for private businesses to help make money for the condo and reduce fees for owners. or current condo buildings to encourage them to allow - when possible - owners to combine units into larger units.

I am not sure that would work but what I am trying to suggest is that instead of just building new buildings local govts could look for ways to use already existing dense housing stock more affordable to middle income buyers.

[Anonymous]

Perversely, homeowners cannot get anything done with DCRA. Developers get away with anything, but homeowners cannot even put a new sink in the basement because they're suspected of wanting to turn it into a rental. The endless run around, the waiting in line for ten half-days in a row to speak to this or that team at DCRA, and the realization that it's both inflexible and unpredictable - you can get any opinion and its opposite from different staff on different days, or depending on who you are, who your contractor is. Meanwhile, the pros do whatever the heck they want to neighbors' foundations, sightlines, safety, and build to whatever the heck height and depth and width because we need more homes.

I don't trust this thread. It reeks of greedy developers.
The reality in this city is that any new higher density build only adds homes that are vastly more expensive than existing homes. Those vastly more expensive and smaller condos or apartments make everything around them more expensive by extension. If the 400sqft 1bd condo down the block if $400k, surely my 2400sqft is worth more than $800k, no? And sure, our city is oddly underdeveloped as cities go. But don't try to bullshit me that building denser has anything to do with social justice, and displacement. Home prices will continue to go up, density will likely go up, and poor people will continue to be displaced, and middle class homeowners will also be displaced from being sandwiched between the intense pushiness of developers and DCRA's anti-homeowner practices.

New builds are not solving any crises.

[Anonymous]

There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

There are also significantly more jobs in the suburbs than in DC. Most people that live in the suburbs work in the suburbs and there is actually a lot of commuting from DC to the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

No, I would be surprised if anyone who made the choice to live in Ashburn moves to DC if new housing is built. The new housing will be bought by first time homeowners, probably young people currently renting in DC. It’s less common for people to move back to DC, especially a move to a small condo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

There are also significantly more jobs in the suburbs than in DC. Most people that live in the suburbs work in the suburbs and there is actually a lot of commuting from DC to the suburbs.

Virtually everyone I know who lives in the suburbs is only there because they couldnt afford DC. They've move into the city in a second if they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

The density bros. like to pretend there is suddenly going to be lots of affordable housing in attractive areas that only *they* will notice or want. The reality is they will be outbid for any new developments that come online. Anything WOTP, for example, will be bid up by parents who will pay through the nose to get their kids to get into Murch, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

There are also significantly more jobs in the suburbs than in DC. Most people that live in the suburbs work in the suburbs and there is actually a lot of commuting from DC to the suburbs.

If this were true, we wouldn't have rush hour in one direction each work day.

Yes, there are some jobs in the suburbs, but i don't buy "most."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable housing, but also middle-income ones, and even luxury homes. I agree with virtually every word of Hayley Bonsteel’s excellent piece for The Urbanist titled “How to Finetune Rep. Macri’s Single-Family Rezone Bill.” I have long been opposed to single-family zoning (not housing), for a number reasons but largely because of its malicious history. Bonsteel is correct in that we must return to our abundant housing roots.

However, abolishing single-family zoning will barely move the needle on our housing crisis. We can’t duplex and triplex our way out of this—though it’s a good step since we do need more diverse types of housing, and rapidly. The decades long fight just to add, and then liberalize accessory dwelling units, or re-legalize duplexes and small apartments in now single-family zones, will pale in comparison to the needed shift.

We sit at the threshold of a decades long housing crisis, and a steepening climate crisis (one our mayor seems wholly unprepared to take on). The region includes some of the smartest and most sophisticated companies in the world, but rather than come to terms with the depth of the scale of this crisis, we put on blinders.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/01/29/housing-action-on-a-truly-massive-scale/

(2020)

About Seattle, but every word applies to the DC area EXCEPT that Seattle is farther along on zoning reform than we are.

We first need to upzone single family home lots.
That means Takoma Park. And Bethesda. And Ward 3 DC. Allow duplexes, triplexes, pop ups, and ADUs.

Then we need even more homes than that.

And if we don’t do all these things, average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

So many affordable homes in NE, SE, pg county-many are on the metro or Marc lines! What We need are good schools.

I hate to say this because it outs me as a white parent contributing to segregation, but this is true. What's the difference between a townhome near Landover metro and the same townhome in Columbia or Urbana? One has a reasonable commute to DC and the others have good schools. Density is part of the equation but it's not all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's five million people in the suburbs. There's <700,000 in DC. Don't you think a whole lot of people in Virginia and Maryland would like a shorter commute? Any new housing built in DC is going to be absorbed by people in the 'burbs. I guess that will open up new places in Gaithersburg and Ashburn and places like that. Yay?

There are also significantly more jobs in the suburbs than in DC. Most people that live in the suburbs work in the suburbs and there is actually a lot of commuting from DC to the suburbs.

Virtually everyone I know who lives in the suburbs is only there because they couldnt afford DC. They've move into the city in a second if they could.

Which means that you don’t live in the suburbs and your friend groups are limited. As someone that lives in the suburbs and who has school age children, I actually know very few people who commute to DC. Furthermore, I know of two families who both lived and worked in DC move out to buy a house in Chevy Chase because since the pandemic started. I know a 3rd family that is shopping for a house in MoCo but haven’t pulled the trigger.

There is no movement of people going the opposite direction and it’s not about costs. The two families that moved to Chevy Chase upgraded.

[Anonymous]

Real middle class make under $100K a year and most housing is barely affordable to them in this area.