Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

So some of you think all of dc should be 12-story cookie cutter apartment buildings. All as ugly as navy yard? To each his own, but who is going to live in these apartments? Who thinks the population of dc will triple in the short-medium term? It’s been stable for 40 years, at least!

[Anonymous]

I don't think there is or will be demand. With the plan to convert office buildings into housing downtown, that will be an additional flood of units.

Townhouses would have demand. More tiny apartments? I don't see it.

I think it is likely that the population of DC will drop in the short-medium term. With jobs shifting elsewhere and remote work going to increase when CRE leases are renegotiated, why pay the cost of living here that comes with so many downsides? This is not DC of 2010 with the majority of work in office and downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Agree that this is part of the value of zoning--and people need to be able to rely on it. Leaving vibrancy to developers is a poor idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wants to see townhouses, buy the land and build townhouses.

Otherwise, the people who own the land are going to put it to its best and most profitable use, which isn't townhouses.

If all the land in DC was used for the most profitable use, the city would end up really sucking. If you want to build a great city, profit needs to take a back seat.

Sadly, for you, we live in a capitalist society with the ability for private ownership of land. If you don't like that system, then maybe the USA isn't the right place for you.

Everyone loves private ownership of land until someone builds an aluminum smelter (or homeless shelter) right next door. Don't get me started on when neighbors start adding pop-ups.

Well, it is a good thing no one is proposing to build an aluminum smelter or homeless shelter in Friendship Heights, then. Can you come up with an argument that isn't a total strawman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Why? Do condos or apartments have cooties that would infect the houses?

Essentially yes. They are anywhere boxes for anywhere people. They are temporary housing for transient people, and DC already has enough of that. What DC needs is something to attract and retain those transients so they become actual residents.

I guess I am not surprised to read something like this written by someone who purports to live in a Ward 3 single family house.

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there is or will be demand. With the plan to convert office buildings into housing downtown, that will be an additional flood of units.

Townhouses would have demand. More tiny apartments? I don't see it.

I think it is likely that the population of DC will drop in the short-medium term. With jobs shifting elsewhere and remote work going to increase when CRE leases are renegotiated, why pay the cost of living here that comes with so many downsides? This is not DC of 2010 with the majority of work in office and downtown.

Most of the office buildings downtown are not suitable for residential. The bank will take ownership and sell at 25 cents on the dollar so the next owner can raze and build anew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The focus is upzoning benefits only the developers who want more opportunities to build. There is plenty of underutilized commercial space in DC that could be converted to condos or apartments. There is no need to change the character of the SFH areas.

Agree that this is part of the value of zoning--and people need to be able to rely on it. Leaving vibrancy to developers is a poor idea.

The basic zoning for Friendship Heights on Wisconsin Avenue is the same - high density because it is on a bunch of bus lines and a metro station. Building low density houses or townhouses on Wisconsin Avenue makes less than no sense. Really hard to understand why this is a difficult concept to comprehend.

[Anonymous]

A new townhouse in FH, let’s say 2000 sf with a very small part of yard, would go for at least $800/sf so $1.6M. Someone who can pay $1.6M will want nicer finishes so they would more likely be closer to $2M. The poster calling for 200 tiny (1000sf or less) low end town houses under 1$M in FH is delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

The idea that what I am able to build on my land does not affect the value of your land is false. If you build a SFH next a to 12 story building, your SFH is not worth much. What I pay for a piece of property is affected directly by the surroundings.

I don’t understand…i mean it is weird to build a SFH next to a 12 story building because you just pissed away the value of that land which also could have a 12 story building built on it. Nobody would pay you the value of a SFH to actually live in it…but it would be worth a lot because you can also construct a high rise on it.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

Didn’t you just literally define NIMBYism? Build it over there…but not here?

YIMBYs never want to upzone their own neighborhoods. It's always someone else's neighborhood that has to change. Someone else is always the bad guy, it's never them. Hence, Yes in Your Back Yard.

Huh? That again is the definition of NIMBYism…you are confused

They're two sides of the same coin. Sorry that's too confusing for you to comprehend.

No…not confused…you just don’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A new townhouse in FH, let’s say 2000 sf with a very small part of yard, would go for at least $800/sf so $1.6M. Someone who can pay $1.6M will want nicer finishes so they would more likely be closer to $2M. The poster calling for 200 tiny (1000sf or less) low end town houses under 1$M in FH is delusional.

So those people just leave town?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A new townhouse in FH, let’s say 2000 sf with a very small part of yard, would go for at least $800/sf so $1.6M. Someone who can pay $1.6M will want nicer finishes so they would more likely be closer to $2M. The poster calling for 200 tiny (1000sf or less) low end town houses under 1$M in FH is delusional.

Question is whether there would be a demand for 200 THs at $2M, or whether the quantity would force a decrease in price. Big difference between building 20 THs and 200 THs. As someone noted above, worst case is that all sell at $2M, resulting in a bunch of wealthy types living DC contributing to its declining tax base.

[Anonymous]

But where’s the demand for so many condos? I’m genuinely curious given that so many are coming online and places like city ridge have struggled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue with upper NW is that most of it is zoned for detached SFH. we need to abolish these zoning barriers and build townhouses, apartments, and high rises. If you want a sleepy suburb, go to Bethesda or Potomac. This is the capital of the United States, and it should reflect that vibrancy

The Yes in *Your* Back Yard contingent checks in, as usual. It's never about their own sacrifice, it's always someone else who has to sacrifice.

As a homeowner, I do not want the government to limit what I am able to build in my own plot of land. I also don’t want to limit my neighbors’ choices of what they want to put on their own land. If they want to leave it (unimproved) as a detached SFH, they can knock themselves out! My land, my choice.

The idea that what I am able to build on my land does not affect the value of your land is false. If you build a SFH next a to 12 story building, your SFH is not worth much. What I pay for a piece of property is affected directly by the surroundings.

I don’t understand…i mean it is weird to build a SFH next to a 12 story building because you just pissed away the value of that land which also could have a 12 story building built on it. Nobody would pay you the value of a SFH to actually live in it…but it would be worth a lot because you can also construct a high rise on it.

So, I get to buy a SFH next to your SFH, tear down my SFH, build a 12 story apartment or condo building, and destroy much of the reason why you bought your SFH. Yes, you can sell and obtain perhaps a higher value. But I have placed you in a very undesirable place-sell or live next to an ugly building. Those who support upzoning are many of the same individuals who opposed gentrification.

Well your previous post was only about value…but if all the sudden we could all erect 12-story buildings the value of our homes would like triple or more.

I will take that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But where’s the demand for so many condos? I’m genuinely curious given that so many are coming online and places like city ridge have struggled.

If there's no demand for what the builders are building, the builders won't build it.