"We don't really have housing options." Other cities have proactive land policies–DC needs them too.

[Anonymous]

Other countries also have hostels and share bathrooms and live without kitchens... all things Americans would find completely unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
What am I arguing? You made the claim that if one really wanted to make an impact on housing, developing RFK would make a real impact. I responded by saying that upzoning and increasing density throughout the city would have a larger impact than developing a single parcel. Do you follow now, or should I use shorter words?[/quote]

Developing RFK would make an impact because it would be actual development resulting in more housing. Upzoning and increasing allowable density would merely enable more development but would not by itself result in more housing. Until urbanism addresses all of the approved but unbuilt units it’s worthless to me because it’s doing more to increase developer margins than it is to increase development. [/quote]
Right? It’s so weird to argue against housing at RFK. The only way it could make sense to me is if you someone didn’t actually believe there’s a housing crisis and instead had an ideological goal to end sing family zoning.

Otherwise, it’s the city’s best bet to deliver thousands of high quality and desirable housing units within 2.5 years. There is nothing else on the table that can do that. Sure, upzone whatever. But it’s shocking how disinterested delivery of actual housing is and how much it’s divorced from from other goal that I’m trying to figure out.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
What am I arguing? You made the claim that if one really wanted to make an impact on housing, developing RFK would make a real impact. I responded by saying that upzoning and increasing density throughout the city would have a larger impact than developing a single parcel. Do you follow now, or should I use shorter words?[/quote]

Developing RFK would make an impact because it would be actual development resulting in more housing. Upzoning and increasing allowable density would merely enable more development but would not by itself result in more housing. Until urbanism addresses all of the approved but unbuilt units it’s worthless to me because it’s doing more to increase developer margins than it is to increase development. [/quote]
[quote]
Right? It’s so weird to argue against housing at RFK. The only way it could make sense to me is if you someone didn’t actually believe there’s a housing crisis and instead had an ideological goal to end sing family zoning.

Otherwise, it’s the city’s best bet to deliver thousands of high quality and desirable housing units within 2.5 years. There is nothing else on the table that can do that. Sure, upzone whatever. But it’s shocking how disinterested delivery of actual housing is and how much it’s divorced from from other goal that I’m trying to figure out. [/quote]

Nobody's arguing against developing RFK in this thread. Please point out where they are if I am mistaken. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who wouldn't want more options to live near their parents while they are raising kids? Imagine that some of the new 1bd luxury developments going up were instead, due to policies that helped developers build them, buildings with 3bd's with nearby in-law suites. There'd be demand for that.

The only real way that happens at scale is if we upzone a whole bunch of Ward 3 and build buildings like that there. But sadly, a minority of older Ward 3 homeowners are blocking ideas like this.

No, your idea is simply and misses that what is really needed is more developed in the underdeveloped parts of the city. Any idiot real estate person, including Orange Man, could do a successful real estate project in Ward. DC must spread out the new developments in all parts of the City.

There's not enough land. We need to build higher in all Wards. But it is Ward 3 that has the most SFHs and is also the place with most demand for housing.

And were you referring to Traitor Trump the corrupt criminal? That guy is a loser, who just happened to arrive at a time when Koch and Murdoch needed a paid professional scammer and liar to hoodwink their uneducated white base. He's a chump who couldn't build a shed without dirty money he was laundering for oligarchs.
And he did the same thing in politics - launder dirty money from American oligarchs Koch, Uihlein, Murdoch, Wilks, Adelson, and Walton into a stolen-election corrupt criminal presidency.

The biggest demand in Ward 3 is for single family homes.

Speaking of Trumper and American (and Russian) oligarch associations in the DC Smart Growth industry, see: https://ward3vision.org/

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Nobody's arguing against developing RFK in this thread. Please point out where they are if I am mistaken. I[/quote]
How predictable and boring of you. I’m adding an emoji because your routine is exhausting

Have fun arguing with yourself. Hope you win your upzoning battle to piss off some rich people while you piss away real opportunity. The tip-off is that GGW hasn’t posted about RFK in 3 years and doesn’t seem to want to promote a campaign to build housing there, otherwise I’m sure you’d be all over it. It might be worth asking why GGW doesn’t want to effectively solve the DC housing crisis within the next 3 years. I have some thoughts about that which relate to who pays the bills and keeps the lights on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

If you have spent any real time in the regional tech community, you would know that the vast majority of those people do not live or work in DC, do not want to live or work in DC, and rarely ever venture into DC, except for Nats/etc games. Having spent decades in these communities, I am constantly amazed that the regional tech communities is mostly disconnected from DC. There are entire communities of DMV residents that are not DC centric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

They grew up around parts of the federal government that are not headquartered in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

They grew up around parts of the federal government that are not headquartered in DC.

It’s the same with RTP but no one would make such a weird argument about RTP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

They grew up around parts of the federal government that are not headquartered in DC.

It’s the same with RTP but no one would make such a weird argument about RTP.

RTP is also turning into a suburban 4-lane highway hellscape with traffic and sprawling development. Difference is that RTP doesn’t have a huge city. Chapel Hill and Durham are each the size of Frederick, if not smaller.

So the housing solutions are different. RTP needs mixed use communities that are walkable inside, and they have some of these. DC really needs to upzone because the places to build housing in the 10-mile diameter center city are just used up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[In] most of the US, we have banal and expensive housing forms — sprawling detached houses, townhomes, and a smattering of condos or apartments — but we don’t really have housing options. There isn’t the variety in forms and cost one might find in a typical German city. Our urban land-use policies are weak to nonexistent; there are virtually no formats or vehicles for non-market housing.

Meanwhile, cities like Berlin, Vienna, and Freiburg have proactive land policies for non-market housing like social housing, cooperatives, and baugruppen. They award sites to projects incorporating sustainability, affordability, or other innovations.

A quarter of housing in the Netherlands is social housing. Two-thirds of Vienna residents live in social housing. Zürich, Switzerland, is aiming for a quarter of all households to live in cooperatives. By 2030, 30 percent of all Parisian homes will be social housing.

Household formation today is diverse and varied, and we should have housing options that match that diversity. More specifically, we should have affordable housing that matches these shifting demographics, encourages community, and enhances solidarity.

Many of the EU re-compaction and brownfield developments I am praising are going all-in on diverse housing types: social housing, multigenerational housing (for young and old, single and families), clusterwohnungen (“cluster apartments” with large communal units for six to 15 people), baugruppen (urban cohousing), elderly housing, housing for single parents, housing for couples, cooperatives, and rental syndicates (a la Mietshäuser Syndikat, a networked syndicate of affordable rental cooperatives), temporary worker housing, maisonettes (two-story apartments), and more.

There is no housing in the US like the stunning Wohnprojekt Wien baugruppe in Vienna or the R-50 baugruppe in Berlin. The Swiss city of Zug is getting an enormous mass timber skyscraper that will incorporate many of these housing types, with abundant amenity space: galleries, music rooms, a library, ateliers, workshops, and sport studios.

Housing diversity is built around the idea of choosing one’s community, choosing how to live. Almost always, sustainability, walkability, and low-carbon living are paramount. There are multiple venues and forums for discussing these issues, including symposia, building exhibitions, and competitions. Many cities encourage diverse housing forms through direct subsidy or progressive land policies (using public land for non-market housing).

US demographics have shifted in the last half-century, to say the least, but there is virtually no discussion here of true housing diversity.

From David Roberts at Substack/Volts, a guest essay by Michael Eliason.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-5-coolest-trends-in-urbanism




This is what DC needs, before our city is fully broken by spiraling ever higher housing costs chases out everyone but the rich, and the old who purchased years ago. We need to start talking about all these issues now.

Let's not be afraid to learn lessons that other countries and cultures have tried, and adopt the best of them.

There are many other good ideas in the above post at the link.

Someone should really do a project that includes a baugruppen and a woonerf. That's the kind of forward-thinking urban design that will activate streetscapes and lead to effective placemaking.

[Anonymous]

But but but I got my house. No one else deserves a house. Their construction might inconvenience me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here. So the answer can't be "no more people in DC". Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy. (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so. And that will not change. DC itself attracts certain industries. The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC. Latter is simply not true. The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC. And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC. And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC. Simply, not true.

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)

They grew up around parts of the federal government that are not headquartered in DC.

It’s the same with RTP but no one would make such a weird argument about RTP.

RTP is also turning into a suburban 4-lane highway hellscape with traffic and sprawling development. Difference is that RTP doesn’t have a huge city. Chapel Hill and Durham are each the size of Frederick, if not smaller.

So the housing solutions are different. RTP needs mixed use communities that are walkable inside, and they have some of these. DC really needs to upzone because the places to build housing in the 10-mile diameter center city are just used up.

I think you’ve missed the point. RTP is not dependent on a city, as you note, but neither is the tech or biotech hubs in Fairfax and MoCo. There are entire economies happening and lives lived with zero connection to DC or any city. And while the Federal government may have been the impetus for these things due to co-location, these economies can and do exist completely outside the government. Cities are not essential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly you GGW people should take this back to GGW.

DC actually already has public housing and it’s been in the process of trying to dismantle much of it for the 30 years that I’ve lived here. Why? Because it was and is dangerous and ultimately spawned a culture that ultimately harmed the people it was supposed to help.

To suggest that DC needs more public housing shows that you know little to nothing about DC, have barely spent any time living in DC (if you do at all) and really have no idea what you are talking about.

This. You people are so annoying. I hate that there are so many idiots who held up the recent comprehensive plan to force developers to include more housing for 0-30% AMI units. You’ve effectively turned the developments over at reservation 13 into projects now. People move. Things change. Move if you can’t afford it. I don’t want to subsidize people in perpetuity.

[Anonymous]

People - go buy a condo. You don’t have a right to a house.