Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data you're looking at is for entire metro areas. If you look at just the city of DC, the median sales price data is quite different. (https://dc.curbed.com/2019/6/13/18677477/dc-real-estate-home-prices-median-condos). In fact, home prices grew by double-digit percentages from 2018 to 2019 according to the D.C. Chief Financial Officer. Median price of a SFH = 9.5x median DC household income median price of a townhome = 8.8x median DC household income median price of a condo or co-op=5.7x median DC household income The above numbers compare similarly to Boston within the city limits. And, while San Francisco and Manhattan certainly have DC beat in terms of unaffordability, that is not a prize to strive for. The above ratios are enough to be disqualifying for mortgages, and that is all you need to know. According to the U.S. Census, we currently have 319,579 housing units in DC. In 2010, we had 296,719 units, so we've experienced an increase of 22,860 housing units. In that same amount of time, the District's population has grown by 109,805 people, five times faster than the number of housing units. |
Anonymous
Increasing density will drive housing prices up, not down. If you pack lots of people into an area, then lots of businesses will want to be there too. Stores, restaurants, bars will move in. That will attract more people, which will attract more businesses. Pretty soon you've created a hip neighborhood where everyone wants to live, and housing prices go to the moon. This has happened over and over in Washington. It is gentrification on steroids. |
Anonymous
This just isn’t true in neighborhoods that are already expensive and density-restricted. It doesn’t make any sense to fret about the gentrification of Tenleytown. |
Anonymous
Don't have to worry about that because they only increase density in poorer neighborhoods. |
Anonymous
Most of this thread is people expressing outrage that the mayor is proposing to increase density in Ward 3. |
Anonymous
Your points are well taken, but the truth is that it doesn't much matter whether you use metro-level prices or city-level prices, the underlying time trend is similar. DC prices, while growing, are actually growing more slowly than most other high cost cities. Yes, we still have a shortage of housing, and we should be doing more about that. But I submit that our price growth is slower precisely because we are doing more to address the supply crunch than many other cities. This should be taken as evidence that the demand curve slopes downward (PP's question), not as evidence that what we are doing is good enough. Here are the trends over the last decade in median sale prices at the city level for the same set of cities (I kept the DC metro and the National numbers in as a reference): https://public.tableau.com/shared/32Y5GY736 Here are the trends at the city level in price per square foot: https://public.tableau.com/shared/X3R99K6RW |
Anonymous
it's true pretty much everywhere else in the city. look what happened to navy yard. |
Anonymous
I think you've inadvertently shown what's so disingenuous about these arguments for increasing density. 'Affordable' has a specific meaning in the context of housing. It doesn't mean $800,000 condos. It doesn't mean "whatever people on DCUM think is a reasonable price for housing." It definitely doesn't mean "more affordable." It typically means (according to the government) people don't have to spend more than 30 percent of their post-tax income on housing. Explain to me how increasing density will ensure that someone earning $45,000 will not have to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. If you can't do that, stop claiming you're increasing affordable housing, because it's not true. |
Anonymous
Literally no one in this thread has claimed that ONLY increasing density will mean more affordable housing. Increased density is part of a series of changes that would, in combination, increase affordable housing. People have argued that increasing density would bring down the median price of housing in neighborhoods with added density, which is true but doesn't necessarily mean the housing will be affordable. People have also argued for other policy ideas that would have to accompany increased density in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. And then people have insisted, in response, in defeating a straw man, which is the imaginary notion that all you have to do to increase affordable housing is increase density. |
Anonymous
Navy Yard isn't a great point of comparison to upper Ward 3, for a few reasons. Before the city started redeveloping Navy Yard in 2005, there wasn't previously a lot of housing of any kind there; it was primarily light industrial businesses and nightclubs, as well as some lower-income housing, which -- it's true -- was mostly wiped out and the residents displaced. Tenleytown and Friendship Heights already have housing, and also businesses that cater to residential areas, and it's all already expensive. It is almost impossible to imagine, though, any kind of redevelopment scheme that would end with Tenleytown property owners will be displaced. Also, there are two stadiums in Navy Yard that also helped attract the businesses there, not just the new condos; there are no professional sports teams playing in upper NW. |
Anonymous
more of the duplicity right here. people on this thread in favor of increasing density have said over and over and over that this is how you create affordable housing. allow me to quote, from posts in just the past couple pages: "I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here." "There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods" ive heard very little talk here of "other policy options" you say would be needed to actually create affordable housing. glad to hear you finally admit that, when it comes to increasing density and creating affordable housing, it's all just a big lie. |
Anonymous
One example of the other policy options you say you haven't seen anyone talking about is quoted further up in your own post: "the price of housing will not decrease enough to become affordable for people who are poor. This is true. The market by itself won't solve this problem. That's why there also has to be housing built by the government or non-profits." I'm sure you won't like that idea any more than you like the idea of allowing apartment buildings in Ward 3. But people have definitely brought it up, frequently. (As an aside: It's also true in neighborhoods like Tenleytown, AU Park, etc., that even building the proverbial $800,000 condos would make both (a) more housing and (b) housing that is more affordable than the current housing -- only marginally more affordable, sure, but it's still easier for more people to spend $800,000 for a condo than it is to spend $1.2 million on a house. I think it's worth reducing the price of housing IN GENERAL as well as specifically targeting more affordable housing for people who really can't afford it; why is it fair that because I can afford to buy a house in my neighborhood, I can live there, but no one else can?) |
Anonymous
|
I’ve heard the “density drives demand” argument. Communities EotR have even expressed concern about getting amenities, like new business, libraries, and groceries because these might drive up property values and, thus, advance gentrification. If this is one’s view, then the only policy lever to enhance affordability would be to neglect a city until it sucks. Fortunately, that wouldn’t be achievable, even if misguided pols wanted it. Jobs still move into an area if conditions are right, and businesses still move in to serve residents with high-paying jobs.
“Ban density” results in one of two outcomes —sprawl or increased prices where geography/population concentrations limits where new growth can go. |
Anonymous
|
Many of you are correct, no developer wants to build affordable housing. It costs a small percentage less to build, but the profits are significantly less.
Yet, building more does increase housing affordability. For one, multi-unit buildings in DC do have to have a certain percentage of affordable units set aside by law. Often this is “workforce” housing priced to be affordable for people earning between 50 percent and 110 percent of the area median income (about $85k). If the developer fails to provide these units, they must pay into a housing fund. The new units increase supply. While new housing units may cost a lot, they drive down the relative cost of older units. In my zip updated and gut-renovated homes are up 25 percent in value over the last five years, while unimproved homes are the same price as they were in 2014. With inflation, that’s effectively a price drop. Today’s class A buildings will be class B buildings in 20-30 years. If we want an inventory of those Class B buildings, we need to start construction at some point. It might as well be now (a long-term stability of supply/price of substitutes issue). |
Anonymous
| Or you could just renovate what's there? It seems like this is gentrification of gentrified areas basically? Like gentrification on steroids? More residences, newer residences, better residences. Where does it end? A tower of mcmansions teetering on top of one another? |