Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

The parking requirements go away within a 1/2 mile on transit, which is not just metro. That’s where a lot of properties will be developed.

Also, again, this is phase 1. Phase two will allow multi family housing in former SFZ to be built on a larger scale than the SFHs.

Wait a second- the builders can have fewer spaces but the street parking will still be zoned, right? Please God tell me Council just didn't invite all of Maryland to drive to Rosemont, park, and hop on the metro.

I live in Rosemont. People already do that. Parking enforcement is nonexistent. Construction companies even store their equipment and trucks on Russell and Commonwealth overnight and weekends. The city doesn’t care.

The city parking unit is severely understaffed and was previously also used for crosswalk guards. I believe TES is working to remediate this issue.

That may be true but I’ve lived in Rosemont 20 years. They have never enforced.

Outside of the center of Old Town, they only enforce if you put in a 311. Put one in every day (early), they will come out and mark. If only takes a minute to put it in.

Lets get together Rosemont and Del Ray and yell for some enforcement - especially Friday and Saturday nights (at least on the Del Ray end). The enforcement will pay for itself just ticketing the cars that are parked too close to stop signs at the ends of every block and it would also make the sight lines much safer for pedestrians and encourage better future behavior.

I live on a street very near Braddock Road Metro that isn't zoned. The truly savvy had learned that they can avoid cabs and airport parking fees by parking on my street, walking the 8 minutes to the metro, get off at National and go on their trip without a dime spent for parking.

Until I ruined it for them. Now I see them attempting it and I call the non emergency police number 703.746.4444 and request a visit by parking enforcement all before theyve even made it to the station. Enforcement chalks the tires and comes back three days later and tickets. Another three days go by and the car is towed. I've had 4 towed this year. Little victories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't the title of this thread need to be updated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

The parking requirements go away within a 1/2 mile on transit, which is not just metro. That’s where a lot of properties will be developed.

Also, again, this is phase 1. Phase two will allow multi family housing in former SFZ to be built on a larger scale than the SFHs.

Wait a second- the builders can have fewer spaces but the street parking will still be zoned, right? Please God tell me Council just didn't invite all of Maryland to drive to Rosemont, park, and hop on the metro.

I live in Rosemont. People already do that. Parking enforcement is nonexistent. Construction companies even store their equipment and trucks on Russell and Commonwealth overnight and weekends. The city doesn’t care.

The city parking unit is severely understaffed and was previously also used for crosswalk guards. I believe TES is working to remediate this issue.

That may be true but I’ve lived in Rosemont 20 years. They have never enforced.

Outside of the center of Old Town, they only enforce if you put in a 311. Put one in every day (early), they will come out and mark. If only takes a minute to put it in.

Lets get together Rosemont and Del Ray and yell for some enforcement - especially Friday and Saturday nights (at least on the Del Ray end). The enforcement will pay for itself just ticketing the cars that are parked too close to stop signs at the ends of every block and it would also make the sight lines much safer for pedestrians and encourage better future behavior.

I live on a street very near Braddock Road Metro that isn't zoned. The truly savvy had learned that they can avoid cabs and airport parking fees by parking on my street, walking the 8 minutes to the metro, get off at National and go on their trip without a dime spent for parking.

Until I ruined it for them. Now I see them attempting it and I call the non emergency police number 703.746.4444 and request a visit by parking enforcement all before theyve even made it to the station. Enforcement chalks the tires and comes back three days later and tickets. Another three days go by and the car is towed. I've had 4 towed this year. Little victories.

We had this problem in Potomac Yard as well - but citizens who care about it can enact a parking district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

Alexandrians against more Alexandrians!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

More bullshit from the so-called smart growth development lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Well, then. Affordable housing problem solved! Bravo Alexandria!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

They made no assumptions about the number of "affordable" units, just the number of total new units added.