There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

You give developers way too much credit. They specialize in using a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to them. Secondly, we just came out of a period of easy money where even bad projects penciled out. It will take a while for the new financial reality to sink in.

Too much credit for what? Building what they think there's demand for? If it turns out there isn't demand - well, it's their money. Being more informed about demand than anonymous complainers on DCUM? That's a low bar, and yes, I think they clear it.

Do you really think developers use their own money? If 20% of the funding is coming from the developer, that would be a shock. The whole industry is built on cheap financing, and that's no secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

Deeply affordable housing is wonderful because it brings so much value to the community. The low income housing complex near my neighborhood has only had two murders in the last three years.

At least you don’t have them under the same roof. We rented in Arlington and we’re not told there were set aside affordable units in the expensive condo building. We are in the 11th month of a 12 month lease and are moving to a small condo in Falls Church which limits the number of rentals.

All the fires, arrests, break ins, stolen packages, fire alarms, pool clearings, police calls were down to the affordable unit people. They also grabbed food meant for others from drivers that we nowvhave to go to the delivery person’s car to get a delivery.

This was $2,400 a month in North Arlington so it wasn’t a slum.

+1. This is the ugly truth that you're not supposed to talk about. Just wait for Plan Langston Blvd.

Supporting affordable housing is fine, but don't lie about the consequences. Crime rates will go up. There is a 20x discrepancy between incarceration rates among males born to families in bottom 10% of income distribution vs the top 10% of income distribution. There is no serious research that suggests any crime prevention policies will come close to reducing the incidence of criminality by 95%.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/14/17114226/incarceration-family-income-parents-study-brookings-rich-kid-poor-kid

Crime rates are associated with areas with a HIGH concentration of extremely low income in a particular areas due in part to the lack of economic and educational opportunity in those areas. Part of the point is to reduce these high concentrations (intentionally created by past public policy by the way) and thereby decrease overall crime.

Sounds like redistributing crime, not decreasing it.

That’s fine with them because they’ve decided that equal is fair. They imagine that crime, housing pressure, traffic, and poor schools are like water building up behind a dam of regulations and laws. Rather than divert water or embrace some well thought out plans to remediate the issues, they want to just blow up the dam and let the water destroy everything in its path. Sure, it will be terrible, but everyone will get an equal amount of water, and that’s what’s important to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

^^ This.

I’d be curious to know the proportion of empty apt units that are “new” vs. older. Are newer buildings getting filled at the expense of existing, more dated options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

If there were no demand for them, then the profit margin on them would be zero. If they have a high profit margin, then there is demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

^^ This.

I’d be curious to know the proportion of empty apt units that are “new” vs. older. Are newer buildings getting filled at the expense of existing, more dated options?

In other words, people with more money move into the newer units, leaving the older units to be more affordable for people with less money? Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.

[Anonymous]

I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

My point is I don't think anyone is going there. I drive by nearly every day. Boondoggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

My point is I don't think anyone is going there. I drive by nearly every day. Boondoggle.

Ok, so...? That's Whole Foods's problem.

[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:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

^^ This.

I’d be curious to know the proportion of empty apt units that are “new” vs. older. Are newer buildings getting filled at the expense of existing, more dated options?

In other words, people with more money move into the newer units, leaving the older units to be more affordable for people with less money? Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.

But builders don’t actually build enough for it to work that way here (even though they’re allowed to). It could be that they don’t want to cause the prices of their existing units to go down.

Newer buildings fill slowly. They don’t put all the units on the market as they’re ready because they don’t want to drive rents down.

[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:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

^^ This.

I’d be curious to know the proportion of empty apt units that are “new” vs. older. Are newer buildings getting filled at the expense of existing, more dated options?

In other words, people with more money move into the newer units, leaving the older units to be more affordable for people with less money? Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.

But builders don’t actually build enough for it to work that way here (even though they’re allowed to). It could be that they don’t want to cause the prices of their existing units to go down.

Newer buildings fill slowly. They don’t put all the units on the market as they’re ready because they don’t want to drive rents down.

So the new units are empty AND the old units are empty AND the builders keep building more (empty) units AND the rent stays high? That's amazing.

[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:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

They build them because they have the highest profit margin not because of demand. The highest demand is for entry level small houses and townhouses but those have the lowest profit margin.

^^ This.

I’d be curious to know the proportion of empty apt units that are “new” vs. older. Are newer buildings getting filled at the expense of existing, more dated options?

In other words, people with more money move into the newer units, leaving the older units to be more affordable for people with less money? Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.

But builders don’t actually build enough for it to work that way here (even though they’re allowed to). It could be that they don’t want to cause the prices of their existing units to go down.

Newer buildings fill slowly. They don’t put all the units on the market as they’re ready because they don’t want to drive rents down.

So the new units are empty AND the old units are empty AND the builders keep building more (empty) units AND the rent stays high? That's amazing.

It’s just supply and demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

There is very little chance that most of the condos being built will be appreciate much in value. Investing in a condo in DMV to grow one's wealth makes no sense here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

There is very little chance that most of the condos being built will be appreciate much in value. Investing in a condo in DMV to grow one's wealth makes no sense here.

Condos are housing. For people to live in. The main benefit of housing is that people have a place to live.