Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People shop more on line and sit-down restaurants are less common. So DC needs more density to support even the same level of retail and eating and drinking establishments. This is another important reason to bust through barriers to build a lot more housing.

Somehow, I think this is backwards. Businesses usually open when there is a need. Supply and demand. You want to create demand. It doesn't usually work that way.

If you hadn't noticed, people are purchasing online. All retail is struggling--suburban malls were losing stores right and left before the pandemic. This won't help--although people will likely be anxious to get out when this is over.

You don't build high density in order to help the corner bar. It just doesn't work that way.

That's probably true.

It's also true, however, that a corner bar does a lot better when it's surrounded by lots of people who live in easy walking distance. As does all other corner retail.

[Anonymous]

Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

The idea that density is going to drive up housing prices is nonsense too.

Also, you're saying that lots of people want to live in dense areas, dense areas are good for the economy, dense areas are desirable, dense areas have amenities... Those are all reasons to support denser development, not oppose it, aren't they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

The idea that density is going to drive up housing prices is nonsense too.

How are all of those “amenities” looking now? The amenities that Washingtonians seem to value now are quieter streets, uncrowded sidewalks to maintain social distance, leafy green areas for needed sanity, and an appreciation of seeing light and blue sky.

Also, you're saying that lots of people want to live in dense areas, dense areas are good for the economy, dense areas are desirable, dense areas have amenities... Those are all reasons to support denser development, not oppose it, aren't they?

[Anonymous]

How are all of those “amenities” looking now? The amenities that Washingtonians seem to value now are quieter streets, uncrowded sidewalks to maintain social distance, leafy green areas for needed sanity, and an appreciation of seeing light and blue sky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are all of those “amenities” looking now? The amenities that Washingtonians seem to value now are quieter streets, uncrowded sidewalks to maintain social distance, leafy green areas for needed sanity, and an appreciation of seeing light and blue sky.

Basing urban design on a once-in-a-century occurrence doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Or a financially viable one, either.

Meanwhile the streets are quieter because there's less driving, and there'd be plenty of room for walking if the DC government followed the lead of many other cities around the world by reassigning some of the empty road space to people out walking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are all of those “amenities” looking now? The amenities that Washingtonians seem to value now are quieter streets, uncrowded sidewalks to maintain social distance, leafy green areas for needed sanity, and an appreciation of seeing light and blue sky.

Basing urban design on a once-in-a-century occurrence doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Or a financially viable one, either.

Meanwhile the streets are quieter because there's less driving, and there'd be plenty of room for walking if the DC government followed the lead of many other cities around the world by reassigning some of the empty road space to people out walking.

^^^But, if this has a permanent effect on people's preferences, such that people who previously wanted to live in urban places in walking distance of stuff will henceforth want to live in spread-out areas where you have to drive, then that's good news for you, because the developers will stop building the kind of buildings you don't like. And rents/prices for living in the kind of buildings you don't like will also decrease, making it more affordable to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

It's not true that nobody wants to live in rural Nebraska.

It is true that not very many people want to live in rural Nebraska, especially given the lack of economic opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you really think that making the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC much more dense is going to make them more desirable neighborhoods?

DP. If there's no desire (i.e., market demand) for the housing, then the developers don't build it.

Not to mention that it's logically inconsistent to argue that multi-family buildings will make the Palisades or Chevy Chase DC more expensive AND less desirable. Pick one or the other. You can't have both.

I'm assuming that when you say "desirable," you're referring to people in general desiring it, not you specifically desiring it. When people use the word "desirable," it's always a good idea to ask: desirable for whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

It's not true that nobody wants to live in rural Nebraska.

It is true that not very many people want to live in rural Nebraska, especially given the lack of economic opportunities.[/quote

The unemployment rate in Nebraska is lower than it is in NYC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up, not down.

If you have a bunch of people living in a small area, then businesses will want to be there too because they want foot traffic. As bars and grocery stores and restaurants and boutiques move in, then more people want to live there too. So more condos and apartments are built. That brings even more bars and grocery stores and restaurants to the area, which makes even more people want to live there, and housing prices go to the moon.

This has happened over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC. Look at Navy Yard (before that 14th Street, and before that U Street, and before that...)

It's also why cities like NYC can be extremely dense yet extremely expensive.

This idea that density is going to drive down housing prices is just nonsense.

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

This is why adding units in housing places like DC does nothing for prices. The demand to live here will always outstrip the supply. So adding housing units only makes the city more crowded and more expensive and livability goes down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is why adding units in housing places like DC does nothing for prices. The demand to live here will always outstrip the supply. So adding housing units only makes the city more crowded and more expensive and livability goes down.

So many people wanting to live in DC reduces the number of people wanting to live in DC!!!!!

Wait, no, that doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

The issue is not density, it's desirability.

Making cities more dense makes them more desirable to live in (because there's many more amenities that can be supported, thanks to economies of scale) and that drives up housing prices.

The least densely populated places in this country tend to be the cheapest. Why? Because no one wants to live in rural Nebraska.

The most densely populated places in this country tend to be the most expensive? Why? Because seemingly everyone wants to live in NYC or SF or DC.

It's not true that nobody wants to live in rural Nebraska.

It is true that not very many people want to live in rural Nebraska, especially given the lack of economic opportunities.

The unemployment rate in Nebraska is lower than it is in NYC

Rural Nebraska is a great place to move for a job, if you're an unauthorized immigrant willing to work for low pay under dangerous conditions in the meatpacking industry. Otherwise, mostly not.