Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this WaPo article very telling about what will happen to remove zoning laws to allow ADUs on properties. The argument that removing SF zoning will miraculously result in an increase of affordable housing simply isn't realistic. In addition to duplexes there is also the added argument of covering garages, etc into accessory units for rent that will become more affordable.

This couple in DC converted their garage into a 500 sq ft one bedroom rental unit. The tenant is paying $1975 per month, which apparently is also the top end of the apartment rental rate for that neighborhood. There is nothing affordable about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/enduring-less-ado-with-an-adu/2020/01/29/2b720074-06f1-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html?itid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-real-estate%3Ahomepage%2Fcard-ans

Nobody has said that removing uniplex zoning will miraculous result in an increase of affordable housing. Also, I don't think that the rent for one garage-turned-apartment added to the housing supply, is necessarily a definitive answer.

Actually in Alexandria the city officials are making the argument that one way to increase affordable housing stock is to allow ADUs to be built and that can be accomplished by removing single family zoning laws. People are making those theories, educate yourself. And while no, your cute statement about this ONE unit, this article is an example of what critics to the theory have been saying all along. Allowing ADUs to be built will not translate to an increase in affordable housing. The owners are motivated to get top dollar and there are so many potential renters willing to pay it. So it does increase the housing supply, but not the affordable housing supply.

Well, yes. Adding ADUs will add to the supply of housing, which will make housing more affordable, and yes, you often do have to change the zoning laws in order to allow ADUs.

The opponents have themselves a nice little paradox here.

1. We oppose market solutions (allowing ADUs, duplexes, etc.,) because poor people won't be able to afford to live there.
2. We oppose non-market solutions (government/non-profits building housing that poor people will be able to afford to live in) because they're social engineering and don't work.

Super weird you’re making these assumptions and stereotypes. I don’t believe #1 will work nor do I believe it is a “market solution” based on my career in this industry. And I am not, nor did I ever state, that I was opposed to non-market solutions. Where and why are you putting 1 with 2? In fact, I have stated several times on this thread, that #2 is the only proven and effective way to increase affordable housing. I’ve spent my career doing it. The government needs to spend the money to build it and run it.

Your attempt to rewrite some narrative fails. So bizarre.

All of this stuff about changing zoning laws is a waste of time. If you want affordable housing, the government has to start writing checks. That's the only way it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this WaPo article very telling about what will happen to remove zoning laws to allow ADUs on properties. The argument that removing SF zoning will miraculously result in an increase of affordable housing simply isn't realistic. In addition to duplexes there is also the added argument of covering garages, etc into accessory units for rent that will become more affordable.

This couple in DC converted their garage into a 500 sq ft one bedroom rental unit. The tenant is paying $1975 per month, which apparently is also the top end of the apartment rental rate for that neighborhood. There is nothing affordable about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/enduring-less-ado-with-an-adu/2020/01/29/2b720074-06f1-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html?itid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-real-estate%3Ahomepage%2Fcard-ans

Nobody has said that removing uniplex zoning will miraculous result in an increase of affordable housing. Also, I don't think that the rent for one garage-turned-apartment added to the housing supply, is necessarily a definitive answer.

Actually in Alexandria the city officials are making the argument that one way to increase affordable housing stock is to allow ADUs to be built and that can be accomplished by removing single family zoning laws. People are making those theories, educate yourself. And while no, your cute statement about this ONE unit, this article is an example of what critics to the theory have been saying all along. Allowing ADUs to be built will not translate to an increase in affordable housing. The owners are motivated to get top dollar and there are so many potential renters willing to pay it. So it does increase the housing supply, but not the affordable housing supply.

Well, yes. Adding ADUs will add to the supply of housing, which will make housing more affordable, and yes, you often do have to change the zoning laws in order to allow ADUs.

The opponents have themselves a nice little paradox here.

1. We oppose market solutions (allowing ADUs, duplexes, etc.,) because poor people won't be able to afford to live there.
2. We oppose non-market solutions (government/non-profits building housing that poor people will be able to afford to live in) because they're social engineering and don't work.

Super weird you’re making these assumptions and stereotypes. I don’t believe #1 will work nor do I believe it is a “market solution” based on my career in this industry. And I am not, nor did I ever state, that I was opposed to non-market solutions. Where and why are you putting 1 with 2? In fact, I have stated several times on this thread, that #2 is the only proven and effective way to increase affordable housing. I’ve spent my career doing it. The government needs to spend the money to build it and run it.

Your attempt to rewrite some narrative fails. So bizarre.

It's not rewriting a narrative. It's the way that neighborhoods actually argue. If you're in the field, then you're familiar with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this WaPo article very telling about what will happen to remove zoning laws to allow ADUs on properties. The argument that removing SF zoning will miraculously result in an increase of affordable housing simply isn't realistic. In addition to duplexes there is also the added argument of covering garages, etc into accessory units for rent that will become more affordable.

This couple in DC converted their garage into a 500 sq ft one bedroom rental unit. The tenant is paying $1975 per month, which apparently is also the top end of the apartment rental rate for that neighborhood. There is nothing affordable about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/enduring-less-ado-with-an-adu/2020/01/29/2b720074-06f1-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html?itid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-real-estate%3Ahomepage%2Fcard-ans

Nobody has said that removing uniplex zoning will miraculous result in an increase of affordable housing. Also, I don't think that the rent for one garage-turned-apartment added to the housing supply, is necessarily a definitive answer.

Actually in Alexandria the city officials are making the argument that one way to increase affordable housing stock is to allow ADUs to be built and that can be accomplished by removing single family zoning laws. People are making those theories, educate yourself. And while no, your cute statement about this ONE unit, this article is an example of what critics to the theory have been saying all along. Allowing ADUs to be built will not translate to an increase in affordable housing. The owners are motivated to get top dollar and there are so many potential renters willing to pay it. So it does increase the housing supply, but not the affordable housing supply.

Well, yes. Adding ADUs will add to the supply of housing, which will make housing more affordable, and yes, you often do have to change the zoning laws in order to allow ADUs.

The opponents have themselves a nice little paradox here.

1. We oppose market solutions (allowing ADUs, duplexes, etc.,) because poor people won't be able to afford to live there.
2. We oppose non-market solutions (government/non-profits building housing that poor people will be able to afford to live in) because they're social engineering and don't work.

ADUs (originally sold as "granny flats" by the same folks who developed the term "gentle density") won't make much of dent in affordable housing. They will be interesting potentially for some singles who want to live in a largely single family area themselves. But they will be too small for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also reminds of the 3rd world where folks cram the cities /flee the countryside...but the cities arent exactly lovely places to live, well planned or functioning

LOL - yup that is where DC is headed!

Cleveland Park is going to be a Favela by 2025 - better sell your house now!

No, the developers marketing their Cleveland Park project as "affordable" and "smart growth" are proposing $1.5 M "townhouses" with no back doors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

The fallacy in your argument is that upzoning (and upFLUMMING, in the lexicon of the Office of Planning) puts pressure on these older buildings as they become juicy targets for developers to tear them down and build more market rate, typically upscale housing. Ward 3 has over 10,000 rent controlled units, most in older apartment buildings. Zoning changes likely will turn these buildings into teardown opportunities, which will reduce the supply of affordable housing, not increase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this WaPo article very telling about what will happen to remove zoning laws to allow ADUs on properties. The argument that removing SF zoning will miraculously result in an increase of affordable housing simply isn't realistic. In addition to duplexes there is also the added argument of covering garages, etc into accessory units for rent that will become more affordable.

This couple in DC converted their garage into a 500 sq ft one bedroom rental unit. The tenant is paying $1975 per month, which apparently is also the top end of the apartment rental rate for that neighborhood. There is nothing affordable about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/enduring-less-ado-with-an-adu/2020/01/29/2b720074-06f1-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html?itid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-real-estate%3Ahomepage%2Fcard-ans

Nobody has said that removing uniplex zoning will miraculous result in an increase of affordable housing. Also, I don't think that the rent for one garage-turned-apartment added to the housing supply, is necessarily a definitive answer.

Actually in Alexandria the city officials are making the argument that one way to increase affordable housing stock is to allow ADUs to be built and that can be accomplished by removing single family zoning laws. People are making those theories, educate yourself. And while no, your cute statement about this ONE unit, this article is an example of what critics to the theory have been saying all along. Allowing ADUs to be built will not translate to an increase in affordable housing. The owners are motivated to get top dollar and there are so many potential renters willing to pay it. So it does increase the housing supply, but not the affordable housing supply.

Well, yes. Adding ADUs will add to the supply of housing, which will make housing more affordable, and yes, you often do have to change the zoning laws in order to allow ADUs.

The opponents have themselves a nice little paradox here.

1. We oppose market solutions (allowing ADUs, duplexes, etc.,) because poor people won't be able to afford to live there.
2. We oppose non-market solutions (government/non-profits building housing that poor people will be able to afford to live in) because they're social engineering and don't work.

Super weird you’re making these assumptions and stereotypes. I don’t believe #1 will work nor do I believe it is a “market solution” based on my career in this industry. And I am not, nor did I ever state, that I was opposed to non-market solutions. Where and why are you putting 1 with 2? In fact, I have stated several times on this thread, that #2 is the only proven and effective way to increase affordable housing. I’ve spent my career doing it. The government needs to spend the money to build it and run it.

Your attempt to rewrite some narrative fails. So bizarre.

It's not rewriting a narrative. It's the way that neighborhoods actually argue. If you're in the field, then you're familiar with that.

That may be a way some neighborhoods or your neighborhoods argue, but it's not so black and white and it's not even close to universal. I oppose attempts to label policies as market solutions that lack transparency for what the policy really is. I oppose the labeling of a policy as progressive and pro affordable housing and being able to help low and moderate income residents when the history and industry have proven not to be true, not even close. It is a waste of time, a waste of resources, when there are truly people who need a place to live. I believe very strongly in social programs and policies to help uplift and better underserved communities. I have seen them work and work well and when they do it is amazing and so rewarding. The municipal governments need to be focused and learn from housing experts and not feed me some bologna that changing zoning laws will provide affordable housing (whether that is low income, moderate income, workforce, senior, or other programs). I have worked in this for 20 years, with several municipalities in the DMV and Baltimore. I want more affordable housing. I want more Section 8. The market is not the appropriate mechanism to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Housing isn't as expensive in DC as everyone assumes. Prices are high but so are incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also reminds of the 3rd world where folks cram the cities /flee the countryside...but the cities arent exactly lovely places to live, well planned or functioning

LOL - yup that is where DC is headed!

Cleveland Park is going to be a Favela by 2025 - better sell your house now!

To me! I'll buy it as a favor to you, for cheap, because I know you don't want to live in a favela.

Oh I don't want to live in a favela. Have you ever visited or lived in a super-dense city, even supposedly "first world"? They're pretty favela like in lots of ways. In fact, I've been to favelas that are nicer. DC can't even figure out how to clean the bathrooms at gorgeous Union Station. Why not work on that before bring in more people?

[Anonymous]

And just fwiw, my understanding is favelas are pretty much single family homes .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there an end point? Any research around the ideal number of people living "in the city"? Seems a little sci fi to me...

The short answer is that yes, the theoretical literature on city structure considers this. If you're interested, you can find some citations in my long post a couple of pages back. Backing out a precise answer (e.g. "the ideal population of the DC metro region is X") would require additional assumptions beyond what these published papers make, and it's hard to pin down precisely what those assumed values should be (hence people don't publish such calculations). But, the structure exists to do them.

Well, can we at least give a ballpark? And does that figure speak to any city, or does it acknowledge the unique character of DC, which is frankly unique. It is historical, it is the nation's capital. it is chocolate city, it has height restrictions, it is interconnected really uniquely to two thriving states (MD and VA), which also offer housing hubs. Does this ideal density figure algorithm factor in what makes DC, DC?

[Anonymous]

How about we make DC less dense? More green space, more playgrounds, more parks. Fewer condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we make DC less dense? More green space, more playgrounds, more parks. Fewer condos.

How about more green space, more playgrounds, more parks, less space devoted to cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ADUs (originally sold as "granny flats" by the same folks who developed the term "gentle density") won't make much of dent in affordable housing. They will be interesting potentially for some singles who want to live in a largely single family area themselves. But they will be too small for families.

So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we make DC less dense? More green space, more playgrounds, more parks. Fewer condos.

How about more green space, more playgrounds, more parks, less space devoted to cars?

Or how about less space for bike lanes? Since hardly anyone actually uses bike lanes? Talk about wasted space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we make DC less dense? More green space, more playgrounds, more parks. Fewer condos.

I missed what greenspace in DC has been converted to condos? Can you provide even a single example?

In my neighborhood the new condos have almost entirely been put on lots that used to be covered by surface parking lots.

In any case DC is blessed with a lot of greenspace, most of it parkland (both Federal and local) that will not ever be developed. That greenspace (and DC's good transit infra) is one of the most compelling reasons for why DC should be densifying.